Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

4th Geneva Convention

Crispin Blunt: What sanctions are available to the UK in response to unlawful killings by an occupying power (a) under the terms of the 4th Geneva Convention and (b) otherwise.

Jack Straw: There is no specific sanction provided for under the 4th Geneva convention or otherwise but we have repeatedly made our concerns known at national and EU level to the Government of Israel about their policy of so-called targeted killings, which we consider to be unlawful.

Crispin Blunt: Before the killing of Sheikh Yassin and three people in his immediate vicinity, B'Tselem, the Israeli information centre for human rights—the Foreign Office accepts its figures as accurate—recorded that since September 2000, 135 Palestinians have been extra-judicially executed by Israel, and that in the course of those assassinations another 90 Palestinians were killed, including 28 children. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that that policy is illegal. Do they accept that the policy is not only criminal, but self-defeating? How many more murdered people will it take for them to attempt to fulfil their obligations under articles 146 and 147 of the convention? Surely it is incumbent on them to use other sanctions against the Israeli Government to get them to pursue a policy that is lawful, moral and much more likely to reverse the spiral of hatred and violence.

Jack Straw: Our position on those so-called assassinations—straightforward killings—is the same as the hon. Gentleman's, and it is shared by others on both sides of the House. The killings are unlawful, unjustified and self-defeating, and they damage the case that Israel makes in the world. The fact that the killings led to the deaths of not only those whom Israel holds responsible for terrorism, but entirely innocent bystanders, including children, simply emphasises the unlawful nature of that approach, and its counter-productive effect. We will continue to make our position clear to the Government of Israel in representations, which we continually make both bilaterally and through the European Union.
	So far as peace is concerned, the best way to secure a peaceful settlement to that long-standing and terrible conflict is by encouraging and cajoling all parties to return to the pathway set out in the road map. It is the only pathway to peace, and, despite the difficulties, we will continue to do our best to ensure that the parties pursue it.

Oona King: Unlawful killings are only one aspect of Israel's breach of the 4th Geneva convention: torture is commonplace; residents are sealed off; land is confiscated; and houses are demolished—I saw all that in the Gaza strip. Do the Government have the political will to consider sanctions at some point—all other measures have failed—to try to get Israel to uphold the 4th Geneva convention?

Jack Straw: We pursue the enforcement of the 4th Geneva convention in a variety of ways, including regular conferences to review progress. I understand my hon. Friend's frustration and anger, but if we weigh the matter in the balance, we must appreciate how the environment in Israel has changed since the end of September 2000 with the instigation of the so-called armed intifada, which has led to the deaths of about 1,000 Israelis in the most terrifying series of terrorist attacks. In addition to the hundreds of Israeli deaths and injuries, the political process has been paralysed. We want Israel to observe its international and domestic obligations, but we also want a tougher and more effective approach from the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on terrorism emanating from within the occupied territories. We also want a more effective and less ambiguous approach from some of Israel's neighbours, which have encouraged terrorism in the past and still do so today.

Patrick Cormack: We all agree with what the Foreign Secretary has just said, but because there is such widespread disquiet in the House, particularly among those who would count themselves as friends of Israel, after this Question Time, will he inform the Israeli ambassador that last week's actions are deeply deplored by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Jack Straw: I would be delighted to do so. The strength of my representations will be all the greater because it is perfectly plain that that view is reflected in every quarter of the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that I issued a strong statement of condemnation on the morning that the news of Sheikh Yassin's killing came through, and that afternoon my noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean called the Israeli ambassador into the Foreign Office to receive our formal complaint.

Louise Ellman: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the views expressed up to now this morning do not reflect the views of all hon. Members? Does he understand that Israel's action in killing Sheikh Yassin was a legitimate response to an extraordinary situation? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady speak.

Louise Ellman: Sheikh Yassin was the leader of the terrorist organisation, Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, and which greets every attempt to make peace and reconciliation possible with more killings of civilians, whether they be young people in pizzerias and discos or old people at religious ceremonies sitting round the Passover Seder table. Does my right hon. Friend understand that Hamas is the enemy of peace; and can he give us any news as to whether he will follow the lead of the European Union in banning Hamas and its activities in the United Kingdom?

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the strength of feeling on the part of my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members, but it is fair to say that there is widespread concern about the killing of Sheikh Yassin. I do not believe that any Member of this House who expresses their concern about such killings has, however, any doubts about the nature of Sheikh Yassin. I was the Home Secretary who first banned the military wing of Hamas and took the lead internationally in doing so—certainly in Europe. On Tuesday last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the freezing of the assets of several leaders of Hamas. We will continue to take all appropriate action against Hamas and its terrorist activities.
	However, I say to my hon. Friend, as I say to my friends in the Israeli Government, that in my judgment, which is widely shared, their actions in adopting this policy of so-called targeted killings—among other things, they are not targeted—is not only unlawful, but counter-productive, because it greatly taxes the support of Israel's friends, as well as its opponents.

James Clappison: While the loss of innocent Palestinian and Israeli life is equally regrettable, is it not absolutely right that at all material times Hamas must take a large share of responsibility for the loss of lives on both sides owing to its consistent opposition to peace, its use of terrorism to undermine peace, and support for peace, in Israel, and its continuing use of terrorist tactics? Is it not now essential that there should be a change in the Hamas leadership or a move away from support for Hamas on the part of Palestinians so that the emphasis can shift back towards negotiation, and a turning away from the violence to which Hamas is so clearly committed?

Jack Straw: I entirely agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Those who wish peace want to see Hamas not only dealt with appropriately, but marginalised politically. One of the sadnesses of what has happened in the past week is that its result has been far from such political marginalisation.

Ernie Ross: The overwhelming majority of Members will support everything that my right hon. Friend has said this morning. As he will know, many countries have had terrorists who went on to become Prime Ministers. We need to reinvigorate the Americans in order that they can get the peace process back on the rails—that is the answer to Hamas and to targeted killings. What is my right hon. Friend doing actively to encourage that?

Jack Straw: We are doing everything that we can, including providing appropriate security advice to the Palestinian Authority and a great deal of other support. It should be remembered that after the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest bilateral donor to the Palestinian Authority across the international community. That is sometimes forgotten by those who wish to criticise the position of the British Government.
	The organisation that has been the greatest block on progress in respect of the road map has been Hamas, because it was behind the bombing on 19 August, which effectively blew up the progress that had been made on the road map, and it has continued its terrorist outrages.
	In our own way, we have faced terrorism, albeit on a much, much lower scale than that which is faced by Israel, and we know about some of the moral and political dilemmas that arise from it. We found that the best approach was to be tough but lawful, and to act in a way that ensured that the terrorist organisations were marginalised. That is the view not least of very many people living in Palestine, in the occupied territories, who have nothing but contempt and hatred for Hamas and who wish to see a peaceful outcome to the current terrible conflict.

United Nations Reform

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement on United Nations reform.

Bill Rammell: The Government support the United Nations and are fully committed to its reform. We welcome the Secretary-General's decision to set up a high level panel to make recommendations on the way in which the UN can better deal with threats to international peace and security. We are supporting the panel's work and hope that it will make clear recommendations on identifying and tackling the full range of threats to global security.

Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome the Government's support for the debate on UN reform, especially given the genuine threat of terrorism. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the debate also takes account of the way in which the UN and the wider international community deals with issues such as climate change, world poverty and the sort of continuing dispute, for example, between Israel and the Palestinians, which was the subject of the previous questions? Does he agree that moves to reform the UN would be discredited if they were perceived simply as attempts to change international rules to favour the most powerful nations and allow them to be more successful at getting UN endorsement for their actions than they have sometimes been in the past?

Bill Rammell: First, I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the intention of the reform debate. We have to demonstrate that the UN has both the physical and political capacity to face up to key strategic challenges such as international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However, at the same time, we must tackle global insecurity and inequality. Our arguments are not about justifying the actions of the most powerful; they are emphatically about ensuring that the UN has the capacity to face up to the issues that I outlined. Indeed, the Secretary-General has been arguing for that.

George Osborne: What is the Government's attitude in principle to the idea of the EU having a seat on the permanent Security Council?

Bill Rammell: Only sovereign states are eligible to be members of the Security Council. It is therefore inappropriate for the EU to have membership.

Clive Soley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the debate on the UN is profoundly important for this century if we are to have good government and the rule of law throughout the world? In trying to achieve that, we need to give more attention to the needs of failing states, especially the small number that fall under the control of brutal dictators who are so well entrenched that the world has a right to demand their removal. In those circumstances, we should all be in favour of regime change if we have any concern for the stability of the world and the welfare of the populations in those states.

Bill Rammell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his arguments on the issue, which we have discussed previously. There is a strong case for earlier intervention in imminent or breaking conflict. We should consider agreeing criteria that justify humanitarian intervention. In this day and age, the argument that as long as nation states maintain their abuse of human rights within state boundaries they should be beyond the reach of the international community is unacceptable.

Sri Lanka

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Sri Lanka.

Mike O'Brien: The general election campaign under way in Sri Lanka has been comparatively peaceful. We welcome that, especially since the elections on 2 April will come at an important time in the peace process. After the elections, we will look to the new Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—LTTE—to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible.

Alistair Carmichael: But does the Minister share my concern about the continuing and increasing persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, in Sri Lanka? Will he give some assurance that, following Friday's election, the most robust representations possible will be made to the effect that the proposed anti-conversion Bill is an unacceptable breach of religious freedoms and would place Sri Lanka outwith the family of civilised nations?

Mike O'Brien: No individual should be persecuted for their faith. I understand that discussions have taken place in the Sri Lankan Government about some form of anti-conversion legislation. However, no decision has been made on the form that it is likely to take. Parliament in Sri Lanka was dissolved in February and the matter fell for the time being. Our high commissioner has raised the issue with Ministers in Sri Lanka and they said that any law would be carefully discussed with representatives of all major religions in the country to ensure that no religion was discriminated against. They also said that any measure would be targeted against what they call unethical conversions, which means those obtained by financial or other inducements. However, we look to the new Sri Lankan Government to continue to uphold the freedom to have or to adopt a religion of one's choice, which is currently enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution.

David Taylor: Among those contesting Friday's elections are an array of Sinhalese nationalists who reject all forms of co-operation with the Tamils and try to deny minority representation. Does the Minister believe that all the excellent work done by the United Nations in the two years since the ceasefire is imperilled by Friday's possible outcomes? Should not greater efforts be made to bring Tamils back into national life and national development?

Mike O'Brien: Of course, substantial efforts are being made to bring the Tamils back into Sri Lankan life. The negotiations that have been conducted to bring forward the peace process have in many ways, at least until recently, been a model and a bright light in what otherwise has been a difficult international landscape. As my hon. Friend refers to the considerable work being done by the UN, may I add that enormously important work has been done by the Norwegians in getting this process going and succeeding? They have done a tremendous job. We will have to await the outcome of elections, but either way the peace process is likely to continue, certainly with the support of the UN and this Government.

Former Yugoslavia

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on recent ethnic conflict in former Yugoslavia.

Gordon Marsden: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and (b) Russia about the future political status of Kosovo.

Denis MacShane: The events in Kosovo were a tragic outburst of inter-ethnic violence, with 22 people killed and nearly 900 injured. The response of NATO and the European Union helped to stabilise the situation, and it was discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council last week. There are regular discussions with members of the contact group, including Russia, and with all European partners, including the new EU member states, on the future of Kosovo.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that a particularly vicious manifestation of this conflict is the destruction of irreplaceable cultural heritage? Recently, 42 monasteries and Serbian Orthodox churches have been destroyed in Kosovo. What steps can be taken to protect such buildings, which are part of the heritage of us all?

Denis MacShane: I share completely the hon. Gentleman's protest about the loss of European cultural heritage. I visited the great monastery of Gracanica, and I know that our soldiers, as well as those from other NATO forces, have been deployed to guard churches. Equally, the burning down of the mosque in Belgrade was an unacceptable assault on the Muslim religion in the Balkans. I will visit Kosovo shortly, and I will make the point that that part of Europe's history deserves our special attention and protection.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I have just returned from Budapest as a member of a delegation of MPs and peers who discussed this issue with Hungarian MPs and Ministers. We were left in no doubt of their concern, and that of other Visegrad countries that have troops in the region, about the escalation of the problem. Does he accept that the concerns expressed by Javier Solana at the EU summit about the political situation in Kosovo—I understand that the Russians will raise the issue at the NATO Council in three or four days' time—underline the need for us to be more proactive in seeking a political settlement in Kosovo?

Denis MacShane: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a common view across Europe that for the last three or four years we have been chained to the wheels of events rather than guiding Kosovo and Serbia to a new political relationship and future. That relationship must be formed on the basis of common European values, maintain standards relating to the rule of law and democracy, and above all, show respect for minorities, other religions and the culture and communities of people who have lived there for many hundreds of years. The issue of Kosovo and the future of Kosovo and Serbia now require serious political thought and consideration.

Richard Spring: Echoing that point, and given the recent announcement that the spearhead battalion is going into Kosovo with all the personal danger involved, may I ask what moves the Government are making at a political level to minimise the risks to our personnel that arise from the current political vacuum?

Denis MacShane: I have visited British troops on the ground in Kosovo, and believe me, they are not just doing the superb professional job that we all know they do, but winning hearts and minds and working with both communities. To be honest, I am delighted that British troops have been found to go there because I think they will add value in helping to stabilise the local situation, but ultimately a political solution must be found. Much more serious consideration must be given to that.

Rachel Squire: I join my hon. Friend in praising the actions and standards of British troops in Kosovo. I went there recently with the Defence Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the rule of law has not yet been established, as Kosovo is effectively still being run by Albanian-led criminal gangs? As Bosnia demonstrated, the rule of law must be established before both democracy and investment can be promoted. Will my hon. Friend stress to our allies who still have national caveats preventing the closest and most effective working relationships between the civilian police and the military that priority must be given to removing those caveats?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend makes fair points, although I think that President Rugova and Prime Minister Rexhepi are decent and honourable men, and I would not want to refer to links between them and criminal gangs. It is all too easy to fling insults around. It must also be said that the closest possible support for the rule of law is needed throughout the region, including full-hearted co-operation with the international criminal tribunal in The Hague. If everyone in the Balkans made sure that those accused of serious war crimes, for example, were taken to The Hague, that would send a positive signal.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we need state authority in Kosovo. We need authority over property and investments, over the rule of law and over the bringing of people to justice. Some 189 people have been detained in connection with the recent inter-ethnic violence, and I hope that if a charge is approved they will speedily be brought before courts.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister recall that throughout the 1990s Europe was grossly disfigured by ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and does he recall the initial collective failure to deal with that properly? Examples such as Srebrenica, where 7,000 men and boys were slaughtered, are a shaming memorial to that failure. Those events make the need to restore stability in Kosovo all the more urgent.
	The Minister has heard the House's general view that political initiatives are required. Will he take this opportunity to state Her Majesty's Government's position on a political initiative that is sometimes promoted, namely independence for Kosovo?

Denis MacShane: The status of Kosovo is on the agenda, but I think it important for us to maintain our position, which is that we want the application of what I described as European standards in Kosovo. Violence must not be rewarded in any way: we must attach ourselves to that important principle. I also think that we need a new dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade. Some initial remarks in Belgrade were not helpful, although since then a commitment by the Belgrade city government and the Pristina authorities to rebuild mosques and churches has gone in the right direction.
	As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, we need a political solution to the problem of Kosovo. The international community must pay much more attention to that.

Jim Marshall: In view of the need to maintain the rule of law in Kosovo, is there any evidence in the recent past that KFOR has perhaps relaxed its vigilance there?

Denis MacShane: I do not think so. KFOR is a military operation. I have visited the area, as have many hon. Members, to see KFOR operations on the ground. It is a professional organisation and the outburst of violence happened fast and spread like bushfire. We have sent troops to help stabilise the situation. Once again, we could put even more troops in Kosovo, but what is really required is a political solution that must involve Belgrade and other partners in the region. I say again that it is not my intention to go through all the different options from the Dispatch Box, but the Government are now addressing themselves seriously, in collaboration with our partners, to tackling the problems.

Hugh Robertson: Deeply regrettable though it is, is it not a fact of recent history in the Balkans that peace has rarely been achieved until the different ethnic groups of the population are separated, as in Bosnia? Do the British Government support an eventual solution for Kosovo that is based on those means?

Denis MacShane: Having witnessed ethnic cleansing carried out by terrorist and militia activity, I do not believe that that is a policy that the House should easily sanction now where peace prevails. The hon. Gentleman might care to visit Croatia, where he would find that some Serbs had returned, or other parts of the Balkans where different communities live in peace—just south of Kosovo in Macedonia, for example. The notion that Europe can grow and develop only on the basis of driving different communities out of where they have lived over many years does not sit well with common European values.

Israel

Patrick Hall: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about the Israeli wall.

Jack Straw: We are in regular contact with the US Administration, at all levels, about the situation in the middle east, including the Israeli fence and wall.

Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the Israeli wall—particularly the part built illegally within Palestinian territory—generates a deep sense of injustice and anger among the people whose lives are disrupted by it every day? Does he agree that such injustice acts as a recruiting sergeant for extremists such as Hamas? They and the Israeli extremists deliberately maintain the vicious cycle of violence, which is unlikely to be broken unless and until the US adopts the unambiguous position that the wall must be removed. What more can the British Government do to impress that policy on the US Administration?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the adverse effects of the wall. When completed, about 210,000 acres or 14.5 per cent. of west bank land, excluding East Jerusalem, will lie between the barrier and the green line. That land is among the most fertile in the west bank and is home to 275,000 people, so the wall is already of great and adverse consequence to the people who are trapped between it, the barrier and the green line. Once the wall is completed, it will be of even greater consequence.
	We have many conversations with the US Administration in respect of the middle east, as well as other foreign policy issues. The US is the most influential power on the Government of Israel, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the Government of Israel are nonetheless a sovereign Government and many people in the US Administration will say that it is not they in Washington who take decisions for the Government of Israel, but the Government of Israel in Jerusalem. That is true.

Gary Streeter: Is it not sadly unrealistic for us to expect any bold new initiative from the Americans on getting the two sides back together in the run-up to the presidential election? Is there not therefore a dangerous vacuum in the middle east peace process, which Britain should be seeking to fill? Can the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly what the British Government are doing to try to get the two sides back around the table together? Is there not now a strong case for shuttle diplomacy on the part of the British Foreign Secretary to try to put the road map back on track?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. If I felt that all that lay between the current terrible conflict and a peace settlement was my shuttling back and forth between Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, I would be there and would stay there until a settlement was achieved. Sadly, I do not take that view, and it is unrealistic to believe that any outside interlocutor—be it the British Foreign Secretary, the American Secretary of State or heads of state and government—can achieve that because the divide is so great and the hatred and fears on both sides so profound.
	The United States Government remain engaged and committed, notwithstanding the fact that an election is coming up. We are working with the Palestinians above all and especially on their own security, because unless and until the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate that they can take control of security in their own territory in Gaza and the west bank, they will be unable to convince Israel or the international community that they can be an effective interlocutor. That is what we are doing, and we are making considerable progress. We continue to provide substantial aid to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people, and we are working through the European Union and the Quartet, and with the Government of Israel.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of us who happen to be of Jewish origin by birth totally condemn Israeli policy in the occupied territories, consider that there is no justification for what is happening, and equally condemn murderous suicide bombings, which, as he says, are counter-productive? Is it not true that the only country that can make any impression on Israel and put any pressure on it is the United States? And has not the United States a duty and a responsibility to act in accordance with the wishes of the international community and to pressure Israel into observing international law?

Jack Straw: As I have said, the United States has the greatest external influence, but it is only an external influence; decisions are for the sovereign Government of Israel, who jealously guard their own power and autonomy. We need to acknowledge the significant progress that the Bush Administration have made in the past three years in respect of Israel and Palestine. It was President Bush who pushed for the adoption of what became resolution 1393, which for the first time recognised a two-state solution: a secure state of Israel, side by side with a viable state of Palestine. That has been supplemented by resolutions confirming the road map, in which the United States played a leading part, along with the European Union and ourselves. The United States is engaged, but external actors can be as engaged as they like: that will have no effect unless and until the parties directly involved in the conflict are willing to negotiate.

Zimbabwe

Simon Hughes: What action is being taken by the Government to assist in the restoration of freedom and democracy in Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: The Government are providing practical and political support to civil society, human rights organisations and all those in Zimbabwe who want an early return to democratically accountable government that respects human rights and the rule of law. We have played a leading part in the European Union's decision to extend its sanctions against leading members of the regime.

Simon Hughes: Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister made it clear that he raised the issue of Zimbabwe with Colonel Gaddafi last week, and he also made clear the British Government's opposition to what the Libyan Government have been saying. What proactive initiatives will Her Majesty's Government take to make sure that the Libyan Government in particular, and other African Governments more generally, change their view and withdraw the help, encouragement and support that they have been giving Mr. Mugabe?

Chris Mullin: A lot of African Governments take the same view that we do of what goes on in Zimbabwe, but we maintain constant dialogue with them—no doubt we will do so with Libya—in order to make our view clear. Many are under the illusion that it has something to do with our failure to support land reform. Mr. Mugabe has spread that falsehood rather effectively, but we rebut it at every opportunity. We are ready to support land reform, provided that it is carried out in an honest and democratic fashion, rather than by Mugabe's thugs.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will know that I have raised with him the question of political activists in the Zimbabwean Opposition whose lives are in danger. In view of the fact that a political activist was killed this week, will he consider giving more sympathy to activists who want temporary refuge in Britain until such time as Mugabe is finished?

Chris Mullin: That is not within my gift. There are many Zimbabwean refugees in this country, and we consider carefully their applications for asylum. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the recent murder of a political activist in the course of a by-election in Harare. He may have seen the report "Playing with Fire", which was published recently by a South African non-governmental organisation. It says that 24 per cent. of Opposition Members of Parliament in Zimbabwe have been the subject of assassination attempts—a truly astonishing figure—and 16 per cent. have been tortured and three murdered. That in a nutshell tells us all we need to know about life in Zimbabwe under Mr. Mugabe's regime.

Michael Ancram: May I gently ask the Minister when he will do more than just wring his hands about Zimbabwe? When will the Government take action? When will they start freezing the assets of the wealthy businessmen, some of them in this country, who bankroll Mugabe? When will he extend and tighten the European Union's targeted sanctions to bring real and effective pressure on Mugabe and his henchmen? When will the Government formally ask the United Nations to deploy staff to monitor the distribution of food in Zimbabwe? Those are three practical suggestions. When will the Government show some moral courage and stop walking by on the other side?

Chris Mullin: We are not wringing hands. Indeed, some Conservative Members shook hands with Mr. Mugabe in the not-too-distant past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we played a leading part in extending the European sanctions. No day passes without the issue of Zimbabwe crossing my desk in some form or another. We take it very seriously indeed. We have been extremely proactive, and the Zimbabweans are well aware of that. So is the Movement for Democratic Change, which regularly thanks us for the assistance that we give and our attempts to draw attention to what is going on in Zimbabwe. I utterly reject the nonsense that comes from those on the Conservative Benches.

Bob Blizzard: What message does my hon. Friend have for the England cricket team, which is due to tour Zimbabwe later this year? The team does not want to go, but under international cricket rules it can withdraw only if the Government instruct it not to go. I understand my hon. Friend's unwillingness to instruct an independent sporting body, but what can be done to break the impasse? Surely the will of the British people should prevail. I am sure that it is their will that the team should not tour Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: We have made it clear from the outset that we disapprove of the proposed tour of Zimbabwe, but we do not have the power to instruct the team not to go.

EU Constitution

Richard Shepherd: If he will make a statement on negotiations concerning the proposed EU Constitution.

Jack Straw: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the European Council last week requested the Irish presidency to continue its consultations and as soon as appropriate to arrange for the resumption of formal negotiations in the IGC.

Richard Shepherd: I am obliged for that answer, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that under the proposed constitution the European Court of Justice has the power to strike down an Act of Parliament in conflict with European law or the European constitution?

Jack Straw: That power has existed within the treaties since we joined the European Union in 1972, and it is reflected in the treaties that gave primacy to European law over United Kingdom domestic law. It is reflected in existing decisions of the European Court of Justice, and it is reflected in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which was pushed through the House by the Conservative party. Article 10 of the draft constitution, which deals with the primacy of European law, has been confirmed and will be confirmed in a declaration as doing no more than restating the existing state of the law.

Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that this is an important subject about which we should have a big conversation with the British people? How better could that big conversation be terminated than by a referendum?

Jack Straw: I agree—[Hon. Members: "Stop there!"] If I am allowed to conclude my sentence, I shall say what I agree with. I agree not only that we should have a big conversation about the issue, but that we have been doing so. I have ensured that it has been the subject of a far greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny—by this House, its Committees and the other place—than has ever happened before on any draft constitutional treaty emanating from the European Union, and long may that continue. It is for each individual Member to have a big conversation with his or her electorate. For my own part, I never stop having big conversations with the people of Blackburn, including in Blackburn town centre, where I can often be found at 10.30 on a Saturday morning talking directly to my electorate. I recommend that to all Members.

Angus Robertson: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government is content to allow the common fisheries policy to be enshrined as an exclusive competence within the new constitution? Will he confirm that fishing is not a red line issue for the British Government and that they do not think that it is important enough to put to a referendum for the people of Scotland to decide on?

Jack Straw: We have discussed this before. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he is wrong. There is no change in the competences in respect of fishing. Under article I-12 on exclusive competence, there will be—as there is today—exclusive competence in respect of the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. However, in respect of article I-13, every other aspect of fishing remains a shared competence.

Wayne David: Given that the European Union will be enlarged on 1 May, does my right hon. Friend agree that if agreement were reached on the constitutional treaty, it would help to make the Union function far more effectively?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend in every particular. The case for the constitutional treaty is that it will help make the Union more effective. It will not transfer powers, in any substantive degree, to the European Union. Indeed, the reverse point was made when the House of Lords European Union Committee examined the matter. The Committee spelled it out in detail:
	"It is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift, but from the Commission in favour of the member states if the proposals in the Convention are adopted."
	That is true.

Michael Ancram: When will the Government come clean about the constitution? When will they decide whether it is essential if enlargement is to work, as we were told yesterday, or not necessary for that purpose, which is what we were told in December? Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to disown the absurd suggestion that came out of Brussels last week that the constitution was somehow central to the fight against terrorism? The Prime Minister was quoted on Friday as saying that he wanted to dispel what he called "the myths" about the constitution. Why not start with the Government's myth, which is not believed by anyone else in Europe, that the constitution is not integrationist and admit, as the Belgian Prime Minister has done, that it is
	"the capstone for a federal Europe"?

Jack Straw: I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to pray the Prime Minister of Belgium too often in support, because that could lead him down some dangerous rabbit holes. We have never suggested that the constitution is essential to enlargement. It is a self-evident truth that enlargement will take place on 1 May before any draft treaty could conceivably be put in place. What we have said is that it is highly desirable to make the enlarged Union work effectively, which is the case that we have put forward.
	I am aware of all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's bluster on the draft constitution, but he has never given us clear further and better particulars of how he believes that the draft constitution—amended, as it will have to be if we are to recommend it to the House—could conceivably lead to the creation of some kind of super-federal state, because the simple truth is that it will not.

Michael Ancram: For the record, at column 1263 in Hansard yesterday the Prime Minister actually said that the constitution was essential to make enlargement work. That is what I said, and the Foreign Secretary has denied it. He had better make up his mind because he and the Prime Minister seem to be at odds.
	What is so different about this country that the British people, unlike the Irish, the Portuguese, the Danes, the Dutch or the Poles and many others, are not to be trusted with taking a sensible decision in a referendum? On Friday, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a real debate on the constitution, yet it appears that he intends a guillotine process, excluding the British people, designed solely to get this thorny issue out of the way before a general election. Will the Foreign Secretary deny reports that the Government intend to steamroller ratification of the treaty through Parliament in the current Session? Does he not realise how unacceptable that contempt for democracy would be to the British people?

Jack Straw: I am very happy to deny those reports because they are not true; there is no constitutional treaty before the House. Any draft treaty would be examined with the greatest of care by the House and the other place in accordance with the constitutional arrangements that the Conservatives put in place—

Michael Ancram: This Session?

Jack Straw: I cannot say whether it will be in this or the next Session; it very much depends on when and whether—if and whether—a draft constitutional treaty is agreed politically. We should then have to wait for the final text to be cleared by the linguist jurists in Brussels before bringing it to the House. We shall examine it, and the House will be invited to examine it, in accordance with procedures laid down by the Conservatives when they were in government.
	I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the two biggest sets of changes in the way that the European Union operates and in its powers—particularly qualified majority voting—are to be found in the Single European Act 1986 and the Maastricht treaty of 1992. There was no referendum on the Single European Act. There was a proposal for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty—but what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? He spoke against the proposal for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and he marched into the Lobby against the referendum on the Maastricht treaty even though the Maastricht treaty vastly extended powers to a degree that this draft will not do. We will take no lectures on the issue of a referendum—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary welcome the election of the Spanish Socialist Workers party, which unblocked the logjam in the process for bringing about a constitutional treaty? Obviously, if a constitutional treaty is brought forward, national Parliaments in Europe will have a much greater role in scrutinising EU legislation, so does he agree that the House will have to improve its act to do that effectively?

Jack Straw: Of course we welcome the election of a sister party into government in Spain. That has already been made clear.
	There is indeed a strong requirement for far better scrutiny of proposals emanating from the European Union, and it is for that reason that I made a statement to the House about four weeks ago, with all sorts of proposals about how scrutiny by the House, the other place and our Committees could be strengthened.

India/Pakistan

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his assessment of relations between India and Pakistan.

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer Questions 9 and 10 together. We warmly welcome the recent talks between India and Pakistan—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question 10 is about Cyprus.

Jack Straw: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Question 10 was listed yesterday.
	We warmly welcome the recent talks between India and Pakistan and the significant improvement in their relationship. During my recent visits to India and Pakistan, I congratulated President Musharraf, Deputy Prime Minister Advani and Foreign Ministers Kasuri and Sinha on that. We recognise that the talks, due to begin after the Indian general election, may be a long and difficult process, but I very much hope that they will, in due course, lead to a durable settlement of all the outstanding issues, including Kashmir. On 27 January, I wrote to all colleagues in the House spelling out in more detail the progress that had been made in respect of Kashmir.

Peter Luff: In answer to an earlier question, we heard about the importance that cricket can play in international relations, so will the Foreign Secretary join me in expressing pleasure that the courage shown by the leaders of India and Pakistan has been mirrored so dramatically by the behaviour of the cricket fans of both countries during a thrilling one-day series and, again, during the ongoing test series? Given that those two countries were on the brink of nuclear war, some said, only two years ago, given that the process of dialogue is now so firmly entrenched and given the unique relationship that we enjoy with both those countries, what more does the Foreign Secretary think that we can do to build on that uniquely optimistic scenario?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of confidence-building measures, including cricket. The fact that the tests have gone as well as they have, without any violence, has greatly strengthened each side's confidence in the other, after years of enmity. The best that we can do is to support both sides in the process. Of course there are international dimensions to the process, which were terrifying two years ago, but it is essentially a bilateral conflict, so our role is one of support, not interference.

Brian Iddon: As a Member of Parliament who represents people of Indian and Pakistani heritage, as well as a fairly substantial Kashmiri community, may I say how much I welcome improved relations between India and Pakistan, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we can bring India and Pakistan around the table to discuss the thorny issue of Kashmir, all shades of Kashmiri opinion should be taken into account, and that we should eventually involve Kashmiris themselves in any final solution?

Jack Straw: The Governments of both India and Pakistan recognise that Kashmir can have a stable future only if that future and its arrangements involve the communities on both sides of the line of control.

Cyprus

James Gray: What travel advice he was issuing to visitors to Cyprus on 20 March 2003.

Denis MacShane: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer that I gave on 25 February 2004 to his written question on this issue.

James Gray: For the benefit of the House, I shall remind it what the Minister's response was. On 20 March 2003, as our troops were storming into Iraq, the Foreign Office website was advising:
	"Cyprus is not directly affected by the situation in Iraq. We therefore see no reason for holiday plans to be changed."
	How does he square that with the dossier, which, at precisely the same moment, was advising:
	"Iraq has . . . 20 missiles with a range of 650 km, capable of carrying chemical and biological warheads, making Cyprus . . . vulnerable." Which was right—the Foreign Office website or the dossier—and which turned out to be right in the end?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is revisiting an old and familiar theme. He has elided two dates: those of the September dossier, which referred to the capabilities that our intelligence agencies considered Saddam to have—an assessment shared by all other Governments at the time—and of travel advice, given six months later, that said that we did not believe that Cyprus faced a threat. The plain fact is that, for the tourism industry in Cyprus, the Government of Cyprus and the many British citizens who have relations with Cyprus, it was important to give accurate and fair travel advice. Of course it turned out to be true: Cyprus was not affected by the conflict. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the dossier should not have referred to Saddam's capabilities, he will join a very motley and unfortunate crew indeed.

Edward O'Hara: As he looks forward positively and not backward negatively about Cyprus, my hon. Friend will be aware that negotiations for a solution to the Cyprus problem are in their final, delicate stages, and we hope that the outcome will be that a united Cyprus will enter the European Union on 1 May. The negotiations may well be subject to some final adjustment by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Will my hon. Friend give his assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that any final outcome of the negotiations will not include any permanent derogations from the EU's founding principles, such as one with respect to the settlement of Greeks in northern Cyprus and the permanent placement of foreign troops on the island?

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He is right. Today in Bürgenstock in Switzerland, the closing stages of negotiations are taking place and the authority is now with the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, because Greek and Turkish Cypriots could not come to an agreement. We must wish him well.
	I accept the point about European norms, but there are exceptions in many countries to EU acquis and rules. It is important to ensure that EU unilateralism—if I may put it that way—is not seen as superior to the decisions taken by Kofi Annan. The House has an enormous role to play once a decision leaves Bürgenstock. We should use all our influence and power with all our friends in Cyprus on both sides of the green line to urge them to say yes to this and to allow a united Cyprus to enter the EU and start a new and peaceful era in its history.

Point of Order

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I raised with Madam Deputy Speaker the anxieties of my constituents near Heathrow, bearing in mind that the last time there was a crash at Heathrow, the plane landed in my constituency. Those concerns arose from articles in Sunday newspapers. As I suspect you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there have been anti-terrorist actions around Heathrow this morning, which raise further concerns among my constituents. The Metropolitan police are putting a significant amount of information into the public domain, so would you use your good offices to have a word with the Home Secretary so that he will tell the House as much as he can about what has been going on this morning? My constituents and others are deeply worried because they feel at risk.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. No doubt, the record will be read and the appropriate Minister will take heed of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Corporate Killing

Frank Doran: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a new offence of corporate killing that applies to all companies and unincorporated bodies.
	Over the years, the issue of corporate killing—or corporate manslaughter—has been raised many times in the House. The last attempt to introduce legislation on it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in April 2000, and I am pleased to see him in his place. The issue raises strong feelings and it is worth reflecting a little on why so many people, particularly Labour Members, see it as so important.
	In the late 1980s in the United Kingdom, there was a series of disasters, each of which shocked the nation. Even today the roll-call is painful to recite. In March 1987, the Herald of Free Enterprise ran aground off Zeebrugge, with 192 dead; in 1987, the King's Cross underground fire left 31 dead; in July 1988, the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster left 167 dead; in 1988, the Clapham rail crash left 37 dead; in 1989 the Kegworth airline crash left 47 dead; in 1989; the Hillsborough football stadium disaster left 97 dead; and in 1989, the Marchioness river boat sinking left 51 dead.
	Those disasters involved different companies and occurred across a diverse range of industries, but the public inquiry that followed each one had a common thread: the disaster could have been prevented had the company involved taken steps to ensure that its organisation operated safe systems of work within a strong safety culture.
	The disaster with which I am most familiar is Piper Alpha. I will not rehearse all the background to it; suffice it to say that Lord Cullen, who carried out the public inquiry, made fierce criticisms of Occidental, the oil company operating the Piper Alpha oil platform. He said that there were
	"significant flaws in the quality of"
	Occidental Petroleum's
	"management of safety which affected the circumstances of the events of the disaster . . . Occidental management should have been more aware of the need for a high standard in incident provision and firefighting."
	He went on to say:
	"Senior management were too easily satisfied that the permit to work system was being operated correctly, relying on the absence of any feedback of problems as indicating that all was well . . . they adopted a superficial attitude to the assessment of the risk of major hazard."
	I shall come back to Piper Alpha later.
	The accumulation of disasters—and inquiry conclusions that suggested, at best, that there was a widespread problem of a poor safety culture—led to demands for improvement. There was also increasing concern about the inability of the law to punish those responsible for the perceived negligence that led to many unnecessary deaths. There is a common law offence of corporate manslaughter or culpable homicide in Scotland. In England, the offence may be committed by companies or individuals. An individual commits manslaughter if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he or she caused a death through gross or wilful negligence. There is no separate test that allows the court to consider whether the company acted with gross negligence. For example, it is not possible for the courts to consider a company's various failures and determine whether, on aggregate, it could be said that they constituted gross negligence. Corporate guilt is entirely dependent on individual guilt.
	In practice, the offence is extremely difficult to prove. The Piper Alpha case was considered under Scots law, under which the tests are similar. The Lord Advocate refused to instruct a prosecution. He decided that there was insufficient evidence on which to base a successful prosecution, despite all the harsh words of, and the evidence placed before, Lord Cullen. Indeed, after most of the disasters in the 1980s on which an inquiry was held, there was no—or inadequate—investigation of criminal offences.
	In 1996, the Law Commission for England and Wales produced a report on involuntary manslaughter that recommended two offences of unintentional killing which were based on different fault elements: reckless killing and killing by gross carelessness. The commission prepared a draft Bill. The Labour party manifesto in 1997 gave a commitment to introduce legislation, and that was reinforced after the election by the then Home Secretary. Since then, there has been a consultation process and several statements confirming that commitment, including a further manifesto commitment in 2001.
	During consideration on Report of the Criminal Justice Bill in 2003, the Home Secretary said that the Government would announce a timetable for legislation and that they intended to publish a draft Bill. That timetable has not yet been provided, and there is no sign of the draft Bill. Indeed, the rumblings from inside Whitehall are not positive. It is suggested that there are still serious difficulties with the Bill and there is speculation that the main problems centre on the issue of Crown immunity. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that is true or simply gossip, but if there is a problem, the Government need to resolve it quickly.
	My Bill would provide that a corporation would be guilty of corporate killing if a management failure by that corporation was the cause, or one of the causes, of a person's death, and if that failure constituted conduct that fell far below what could reasonably be expected of the corporation in the circumstances. The Bill would also apply to a Crown body. It should apply to the Crown and it would considerably strengthen the health and safety culture in this country.
	Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster made it clear that there were substantial and significant failings in the way in which the Department of Energy too, which was then responsible for enforcing safety offshore, carried out its responsibilities. A short time before the disaster, a worker was killed on the Piper Alpha platform. Department of Energy inspectors investigated and made recommendations, but none of them was carried out, which meant that the last hope of preventing the Piper Alpha tragedy was lost.
	I have always been concerned that there was no prosecution of Occidental, the oil company that operated the Piper Alpha platform. If my Bill had been in force at that time, there would have been a prosecution. There is no question in my mind but that if Occidental had been prosecuted, it would have been appropriate to prosecute the Department of Energy. We cannot have a system that punishes operators for poor safety if we do not apply the same standards to those who are required to regulate the safety system. If the Government are still wrestling with how Crown immunity might apply in the case of corporate killing, I urge Home Office Ministers to contact their colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions.
	In June 2000, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published "Revitalising Health and Safety", which was described as a strategy statement, and which included a number of action points. Action point 15 states:
	"the Government will seek a legislative opportunity, when parliamentary time allows, to remove crown immunity from statutory health and safety enforcement."
	As the House knows, responsibility for health and safety now lies with the Department for Work and Pensions.
	My Bill would extend to Scotland, which I think is important. Although responsibility for legislation lies with the Home Office, the Bill is a health and safety measure that will apply in the main to companies and businesses throughout the UK. Both health and safety law and corporate law apply across the UK, and uniformity is vital, especially within larger corporations.
	The main purpose of my Bill is not to create queues of recalcitrant company directors, or even civil servants, being brought before the courts to be punished for their poor safety records. Its purpose is to act as a disincentive to poor safety systems and to encourage companies and others to recognise that poor safety is far more expensive, in every way, than good and strong safety cultures and practices. My earnest wish is that the Government introduce their legislation as soon as possible, but in the meantime, I recommend the Corporate Killing Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Doran, Tony Lloyd, Judy Mallaber, Ian Stewart, Geraldine Smith, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Miss Anne Begg, Rob Marris, Joan Ruddock, and Mr. Bill Olner.

Corporate Killing

Mr. Frank Doran accordingly presented a Bill to create a new offence of corporate killing that applies to all companies and unincorporated bodies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 84]. Opposition Day

[8th Allotted Day]

Immigration Entry Clearance Standards

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Davis: I beg to move,
	That this House condemns the Government's failure to maintain immigration entry clearance standards; regrets the confusion as to whom the relaxed guidance actually applies; notes the unwillingness of Ministers to take responsibility for the operation of immigration policies; expresses deep concern that, at a time when homeland security is paramount, current fast-tracking procedures do not enable full and thorough checks on applicants; applauds those public servants who bring the Home Office's failings and dishonest internal workings to the attention of honourable Members and the wider public; calls on Her Majesty' Government to reinstate those officials currently suspended from duty; recognises with regret that recent revelations have exposed grave deficiencies in the immigration service; and believes that the Government has lost both the confidence and the trust of the British people in its ability to control immigration policy.
	Before I start on the substantive motion, may I, through the Home Secretary, offer the congratulations of the Opposition—and, I suspect, all hon. Members—to the security services and the police on the remarkable operation that they carried out today, thwarting, we believe, a major terrorist attack?

David Blunkett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words. I believe that we all give considerable thanks to the security services and the counter-terrorism branch, which have done and are doing a first-class job of securing our safety. We now wish to ensure that due process of law takes its course and that the public, especially in those local communities, are reassured both of the adequacy of policing, and that we have in hand any other measures that might be necessary to secure social cohesion.

David Davis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
	Today's debate is about the effective collapse of immigration controls in this country. Let us start by recognising the origins of that catastrophic failure. In May 1997, the Labour Government tore up all our policies on immigration and asylum. In particular, they got rid of the so-called white list, restraints on benefits and the agreement with the French Government. The result was an increase of 200,000 incomers per annum in the UK in the first five years of the Labour Government. It is therefore no wonder that the immigration and nationality directorate was collapsing under the strain.

David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will give way in a minute.
	That is why the Government have a problem. It is why they are mounting a pathetic attempt to blame everyone else—the civil service, the right-wing press including the Daily Mirror, and now the Conservatives. That is daft. We did not face half a million incomers every year, because we got our strategy right.
	What emerges from the documents—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will be on their feet today. What emerges from the documents that we have seen so far—and the new documents that I am releasing today—is a picture of civil servants—honourable, committed and hardworking—who are struggling under impossible burdens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Davis: I will give way in a moment. I see that we have a good set of Government Whips' plants today—almost vegetables, one might say.
	These are civil servants who were instructed to hit clearance targets with no consideration for the quality or purpose of the work that they do. Civil servants are being instructed to do—

David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will give way in a moment.
	Civil servants are being instructed to do things that they believe are improper or even illegal. We are clear from what they say, explicitly, that the collapse has happened over the past two or three years, not 10 or 20 years. It emerges also that these civil servants are the heroes of the piece, not the villains, as Ministers have intimated during the past few weeks.
	I give way to the first plant.

David Taylor: I will resist the temptation to turn this intervention into a point of order that ends in my instructing my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for being called a Government Whips' plant.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that golden asylum and immigration legacy to which he is referring, which the Government inherited on 1 May 1997, included an average time to deal with applications of almost two years? Does he not believe that that played some part in the problems that have been encountered since then?

David Davis: I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures, if he wants to talk numbers. I always enjoy bandying numbers with Whips' plants. In our last year in office, I think that there were 35,000 applicants, compared with 125,000 in Labour's first year in office.
	I shall move on to the sequence of events.

Tom Watson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will give way in a moment—I will give another plant a chance.

Gillian Shephard: Speaking as a Whip non-plant, perhaps I could strengthen the evidence that my right hon. Friend is giving the House by telling him that over the past two to three years the Breckland district council, which covers part of my constituency, has calculated that between 15,000 and 20,000 migrant workers have arrived in its district area. It has no means of knowing whether they are here legally or illegally. It has been extremely difficult to raise concerns among Ministers about whether these people are protected, catered for, dealt with or in any way rendered less vulnerable than invisible people will be.

David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She flags up something that I had not intended to raise, but I think it important: that is, that the issue has serious implications. The proper management of immigration in its totality has an important role in improving or maintaining good community relations, reducing or controlling the burdens on societies and protecting the people themselves. As the cockle pickers' incident demonstrated only too clearly—it took the Government six weeks to convene a ministerial meeting—everyone is affected, including people coming into the country.
	I shall go through the events of the past few weeks. Three weeks ago, the civil servant, Steve Moxon, revealed that immigration officials in Sheffield had been ordered by senior managers to drop key checks on migrants coming to Britain under the European Community Association Agreement. First, the Home Office denied it categorically again and again. Eventually, the Minister was forced to admit that the allegations were correct. However, she did not tell us the full facts.
	The Immigration Minister told the House that the decision to waive checks was "rare and untypical". Now we have learned that it applied to bogus students, sham marriages, people with dubious immigration histories—in fact, it applied to anyone whose application was more than three months old. In effect, this meant granting visas on the back of spurious and demonstrably false claims. As one civil servant in the immigration and nationality directorate wrote in a letter this weekend,
	"This is almost like the CPS"—
	the Crown Prosecution Service—
	"being told to destroy the papers in all prosecution cases, except where there is a 100 per cent. prospect of a conviction, so that the backlog can be cleared."
	That is the view from the front line—not from the ministerial suite, but from the front line of the immigration and nationality directorate. If virtually all applications were being granted, how on earth can we believe the Minister's claim that the practice of rubber-stamping was rare and untypical?
	The Immigration Minister also told the House that the decision to sanction such a policy was taken at a junior level in Sheffield. She told us that she had had nothing to do with it. This week we learned that the Minister had sanctioned a much broader policy. The memo that ordered civil servants to grant all applications over three months old stated:
	"This exercise has been agreed by the Minister of State, Beverley Hughes."
	So how can the Immigration Minister deny all knowledge of this practice, when she ordered it in the first place?

Tom Watson: When the right hon. Gentleman received the e-mail from Bucharest on 8 March, did he consider it his duty to submit the evidence to the Sutton investigation? Why did he wait three weeks to bring it to the notice of the House?

David Davis: I could almost see the Whips' sheet in front of the hon. Gentleman when he was reading out the question. I have two points to make. I remind the hon. Gentleman and this arrogant Government that Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to his own Home Secretary on the radio this morning, he would have heard him say that that was the responsible thing to do if one did not know the provenance of a piece of information. That is what I did until I could confirm the provenance of the document, which was last Wednesday night/Thursday. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own Home Secretary. He was the one who said that that was the right thing to do. The Whips' plants should get their act together.
	I shall excite the Whips' plants now. In the past few days, documents that have been sent to me, which I am making public today, indicate that the decision to waive checks on ECAA applicants went wider and deeper than any previous memo suggests. These documents suggest that ministerial denials of responsibility are, frankly, incredible. I have given the Home Secretary a copy of the documents and placed a copy in the House of Commons Library. The story they tell is one of concerns ignored, warnings unheeded and objections overruled.
	Last night the Minister of State claimed that she knew nothing of the allegations of the consul in Bucharest. That is difficult to believe when one looks at the facts. I have a letter written by Sir John Ramsden, a senior Foreign Office civil servant, to Chris Mace, who is the deputy director general of the immigration and nationality directorate. It was copied to Peter Wrench, the deputy director general in charge of policy. It is one of several accounts of the abuses of the ECAA scheme.
	Let me read the House the key extracts. Sir John is writing about the ECAA scheme. He states:
	"It clear from what they"—
	the British Embassy in Bucharest—
	"told me that this has developed into an organised scam that completely undermines our entry control procedures—and indeed makes a bit of a nonsense of having a visa regime."
	He continues:
	"Post had just received 70 virtually identical business plans . . . Interviewed applicants rarely knew what was in their business plans, typically explaining that these had been 'written by the solicitors.'"
	The letter goes on:
	"It was often clear that applicants had no idea about the trade they were supposed to be setting up in the UK. . . Post have to write long referral letters pointing out the flaws in the cases submitted to them . . ."
	But the business case unit in the Home Office
	"only rarely refuses applications. . . . Even those with a previous immigration history e.g. people caught submitting forged documents in the past have been accepted under the scheme."
	He concludes:
	"It is demoralising for our Post to have to devote a great deal of work to servicing a scam which makes them look ridiculous."

David Blunkett: I do not dispute for a moment that such allegations are deeply serious and should be dealt with as such. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that any Minister approved the actions that he describes—that where previous fraudulent activity had been identified and where there was clearly illegal action, Ministers had told staff that they should ignore it and wave through the application?

David Davis: Unfortunately, the Home Secretary has teed me up well for my next paragraph. The letter was written to the Minister's senior civil servants in November 2002, six months after the Immigration Minister was appointed to her position. Are the Government seriously suggesting that she was not told? In which case, who is running the Department?

Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: In a moment.
	Last night the Minister asked why the consul in Bucharest had not taken the matter up with his senior managers. Let me read to the House a letter that James Cameron wrote to the Home Office as far back as October 2002 to complain about the way in which ECAA applications were processed. He states that the Home Office
	"judgement and decision making with regard to BCU/ECAA applications is a continual problem for overseas posts such as Sofia and Bucharest."
	He continues:
	"Many of the applicants have adverse immigration histories, administrative removals, suspect relationships, have applied after Leave To Remain has expired, and been working illegally in the UK for sometime prior to their ECAA application."
	He goes on:
	"As if this was not enough, most of our ECAA applicants have paid £1500–£2000 to a UK lawyer who 'guarantees' them a visa at the end of the application process.
	The applicants rarely know what is in their business plan, cannot speak English, and have absolutely no knowledge or experience in the type of skills needed for respective businesses.
	Unfortunately against our strongest recommendations,"
	the Home Office
	"continues to issue ECAA applications such as these."
	Let us understand what this means in reality—what Mr. Cameron and his demoralised staff had to face. I shall give just a few examples of the people being let in under the scheme. I have concealed individual names to protect their identities. One example is a Ms A. who was a former British asylum seeker. All her claims for asylum and all her appeals were turned down in the mid-1990s. Facing deportation, Ms A. absconded. She was subsequently picked up by the police and removed from the UK in 1997—[Interruption.] Yes, picked up and removed. Exactly right—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have order.

David Davis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I need protection.
	Ms A. was not, one would have thought, an ideal candidate for the ECAA scheme, yet in October 2002 she was granted an entry visa to the UK under the scheme, under a Labour Government. Or consider Mr. N., whose application to the ECAA scheme was reviewed in March last year. The British embassy "strongly" recommended that Mr. N.'s application be refused because he had insufficient funds to support himself without recourse to public funds. The Home Office's response? "Entry cleared."
	Many other examples of extraordinary ECAA applications include not least a range of builders who know nothing about bricks and mortar, and electricians who know nothing about electricity. A common factor in these applications was an inability to speak English. And the Home Office response? "Entry cleared."

Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No, I will not. I have given up.
	Those are not one-off examples. It is an organised scam. It is well run and well known to the Home Office, yet instead of being tightened since these examples, the rules have been weakened. Yesterday the Home Secretary made a statement on organised crime. This is a prime example of organised crime. One of the excuses given by the Minister and the Prime Minister was that the vast majority of ECAA cases were already in the country legally, but that was all part of the scam.
	I have a letter from the British embassy in Bulgaria to the immigration and nationality directorate in Croydon. It lists the names of 48 people who applied to come to the UK for four to six-day holiday visits from Bulgaria, with an organisation called Delfi Tours.

Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No, I will not—I want to finish this point.
	More than three quarters of those who came to the UK on those holiday visas applied for ECAA status and never returned to Bulgaria. The vice-consul points out that Delfi Tours is
	"just one agency of about 40 we have on a list."
	The letter states that that
	"is clear evidence of organised human trafficking for economic migration from Eastern Europe . . . If this does not demonstrate the enormity of the problem and that something should be done about the ECAA problem sooner rather than later, I don't know what would. It is surely high time Ministers were addressed and the policy of 'switching' in country removed altogether".
	The letter also states:
	"It is no wonder that our daily work is now confined mainly to the depressing task of processing ECAA main applications, ECAA dependants, family visits to ECAA members, or hapless visitors or businessmen with forged documents and increasingly credulous applications to visit the UK with the sole purpose of working there . . . Many local agencies and legal firms in the UK are now jumping on the ECAA bandwagon and submitting mass applications here for applicants with horrendous previous local or UK immigration records, as it is widely and correctly perceived that it is easier to get into the UK under the Agreement that it is to go on a visit."
	That letter was from the British vice-consul in Sofia to the immigration and nationality directorate in Croydon, and it was sent on 20 October 2002. How can Ministers seriously claim that they knew nothing about that?
	I will give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), who has a constituency point.

Geraint Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he signed off a report showing that the previous Government's legacy on immigration was a computer system that did not arrive—hundreds of staff were sacked during that wait—and the loss of hundreds of files when the whole department moved from one office to another. Given that history and his intention to cut £600 million from the Home Office's budget, will he accept that the prospects of his managing the system any better are next to nil?

David Davis: Rather sadly, coming from an ex-member of the Public Accounts Committee, barely a point in that intervention was correct. The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that the Passport Agency was famously computerised under this Government, and as a result one could not get a passport to leave the country—everybody could get in, but one could not get out. [Interruption.]

Geraint Davies: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Davis: I think that Mr. Speaker is protecting the hon. Gentleman from me.
	We are discussing a massive well organised migration scam that civil servants had drawn to the attention of the Home Office, but Ministers did nothing about it. That is the central allegation that the Home Secretary must answer.
	When my office spoke to Mr. Cameron last Thursday, he said that the concerns he raised could easily have been brought to my attention by any one of his demoralised staff. As the man in charge, however, he felt he should be the one to raise them. Frankly, he is a very brave man: at the end of the day, the buck stops with him, and the Minister should learn something from that.
	This is not a question of one or two operational failures; what we have witnessed over the past month is an extraordinary outbreak of incidents that are symptomatic of a catastrophic failure of the system. It is a story of committed and loyal civil servants struggling to make a failing system work, and having their cries for help ignored.

Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is being ignored, so he knows how the civil servants feel.
	Three weeks ago, I said that there had either been collusion, cover-up or simple incompetence; I am beginning to believe that it was all three.
	I am glad to see that the Home Secretary recognised the magnitude of the problem this morning. That is why, as I understand it, he has announced a major investigation, with staff being sent to Bucharest and Sofia—the problem is here, not there—and the setting up of a hotline for civil servants who want to reveal problems without being set about by the Government public relations machine. I welcome those measures, which belatedly begin to recognise the size of the problem.
	The Home Secretary must make a decision, however. Either he believes that what I have described is the result of systemic operational failure, in which case the Minister is to blame, or it is a failure of policy, in which case he is to blame. Whichever it is, somebody should shoulder responsibility for this disaster.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"congratulates the Government on having embarked on radical end to end reform of the immigration and asylum system including strengthening border controls, reducing asylum intake by more than half, increasing immigration removals to record levels and speeding up the processing of applications for leave to remain in the UK; notes that, as indicated in a statement published by the Government on 29th March, all Governments have instituted reasonable and proportionate measures to deal with backlogs of applications by people already in this country for permission to extend their stay; and applauds the fact that the Government, by investing more staff resources than ever before, has reached the point where the Backlog Reduction Accelerated Clearance Exercise (BRACE) is no longer necessary."
	The allegations are serious and concern sensitive issues with profound implications for attitudes to immigration and for the actions of the Government, both now and in the future. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members shouting, "Hear, hear", because they will not get any jokes or knockabout—these matters should be treated with the gravity that they deserve. This is not a knockabout occasion; this is supposed to be a serious debate. [Interruption.] When children shout, "Get on with it", they do themselves no service.
	We should have a grown-up debate and examine the issues with the gravity that they deserve, and we should also understand the concerns that the issues raise with the public. Whatever the knockabout in this House, the concerns of the public affect not only how we do business but race and community relations, and wider immigration policy.
	We should conduct the debate carefully: we should not duck the issues or underestimate the concerns, but we should not play into the hands of the British National party either.

Jim Marshall: I do not recognise the system described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I have to deal with many immigration and asylum cases in my constituency, and it is still exceedingly difficult for people from certain countries to get into the United Kingdom either to settle or as visitors, so I do not understand the big picture that he is painting. If, however, what he says contains some truth—it appears that it does—will the Home Secretary put the issue into perspective by discussing the order of magnitude of the people whom we are talking about compared with people who want to come to the United Kingdom from all parts of the world either to settle or as visitors?

David Blunkett: I will happily do that for my hon. Friend and the House, and I intend to work through the allegations one by one. Today, I have announced the suspension of all applications from Romania and Bulgaria, and the fast track has already been suspended, as those who are familiar with the issue will know. I am instigating an immediate further inquiry, and, as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), has said, I have indicated that staff should immediately go to Bucharest and Sofia to examine the further allegations.
	Had the claims been made available to the Sutton inquiry, we would have taken them into account from 8 March. Unfortunately, the claims were not available, but as I indicated on the radio this morning, we are setting up a hotline and a website so that those who do not want to use the existing whistleblower procedures can feel free to speak without intimidation. That may disappoint The Sunday Times and other newspapers, because staff will have to report things through the system, not outside it. I promise them, however, that any allegations will be dealt with properly and sensitively.
	We will pick up on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. That was mentioned in Mr. Cameron's e-mail, which indicated that it was doing an excellent job—as it was, on the back of the conference that was held with the Foreign Office in November 2002 on dealing with the problems and opportunities of developments in south-east Europe. That was part of our recognition of the fact that organised criminality would undermine the case for accession to the European Union, undermine proper immigration procedures, and undermine our attack on drug smuggling. That led to allegations of the kind that have been reiterated today.
	I mention the conference in November 2002 because the fresh material—not fresh in the sense that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has had it for a long time, but in the sense that he has put it into the public arena—relates very much to what was happening in autumn 2002. Yes, Chris Mace and Peter Wrench did work for the Department then, but they have not done so for some considerable time. [Hon. Members: "So what?"] Conservative Members should not assume that we disagree with them just because they have a political hare running. Some of us agree that action should have been taken. Some of us—including the Minister of State and me—believe that if material is placed before senior management they should act on it. We are talking about allegations of fraud and forged documents. People who use false papers and have an immigration history that rules them out should be ruled out. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to recognise that, just common sense. [Interruption.] I hear another sedentary intervention saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister is to blame. How on earth can one blame her for actions taken in relation to the failure to follow through on allegations of the magnitude that I have described and have been alleged by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden?
	The e-mail that was revealed last night was sent by Mr. Cameron on 8 March. That coincides exactly with the day on which my right hon. Friend the Minister set up the review to examine these issues. I do not dispute for a moment that the shadow Home Secretary did not know who had sent the e-mail, and I do not doubt his word in terms of its not being revealed until last Thursday, but I do think that it was irresponsible, having had that document and others, not to have placed them before the Sutton review.

Eric Forth: So it is all our fault, then?

David Blunkett: I thought that we had all agreed that where fraud, deception, forgery and illegal action need to be dealt with, we all have a responsibility to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who will have apoplexy if I do not, but I just want to make it clear that responsibility is not confined to Ministers: we all have an obligation. I simply put myself in the position of the shadow Home Secretary and ask whether I would want to make mischief—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are so many voices in the Chamber that I cannot hear the Home Secretary. I should be able to hear the Home Secretary. I say again, as I have said before, that shouting is unacceptable in the House.

David Blunkett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, although I am not worried about being shouted at.
	Were I to be in the shadow Home Secretary's position, I would certainly want to cause maximum embarrassment to the Government. Oppositions do that—we did it ourselves. However, I would have questioned my conscience as to whether, having received material and held it for several weeks, I would have been honour-bound to present it not to me, the Home Secretary, but to Ken Sutton.

Angela Browning: I point out to the Home Secretary that I am listening very quietly, unusually for me. As a former Minister, I, like many of my colleagues, was subjected by this Government, when they were in opposition, to a two-year full public inquiry chaired by the Master of the Rolls, with all ministerial papers being made available. I refer of course to the BSE inquiry. I have no objection to having been put through that exercise, but I remind the Home Secretary that not one Minister who was subject to that inquiry sought at any time to blame any official. During our term of office, the buck stopped with Ministers, and we recognised that fact.

David Blunkett: But I do not remember a single Minister resigning. I remember that BSE cost the country billions of pounds, that it cost people a great deal of misery, and that there were very many allegations, but I do not remember the Secretary of State or any Minister resigning. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are shouting that they were exonerated. Well, my right hon. Friend the Minister has been exonerated. [Hon. Members: "No, she has not."] Yes, she has. This is not simply a matter of protecting my integrity or that of my right hon. Friend or other Ministers: it is about the confidence that the public need to have and about the morale of staff in dealing with such issues as they undertake a difficult job. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, "We value the staff, we have confidence them, and we applaud them for their courage." So do we. We have, above all, a duty of care to our staff, and we have not sought to blame them for what has happened. [Hon. Members: "Yes, you have."] No, we have not. We have sought to get to the root of the allegations that were made in relation to specific measures that were taken, why they were taken, and who authorised them to be taken, even if we understand why they were taken. There is a difference.

Mark Oaten: As the internal inquiry was unable to consider the Cameron e-mail, will the Home Secretary come to the Dispatch Box and agree to a full independent inquiry so that it can be considered?

David Blunkett: I am already at the Dispatch Box announcing the measures that we intend to take and the way in which we will deal with the material: we will of course make it publicly available.

Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State said a moment ago that Ministers have not sought to pin the blame on officials. Was he not present for the statement that his right hon. Friend the Minister made to this House about a month ago, when she specifically indicated that officials, not herself, were responsible for what had gone wrong? She should know what is happening in her part of the Department. If she is not in full control of the situation, that suggests that she is not up to the job.

David Blunkett: I am sorry, but I intend to deal with the specific allegations one by one; trying to slur the Minister does not shed any light on the situation—

George Osborne: rose—

David Blunkett: I want to make some progress before I give way again.
	We need to get a bit of light on the issue, as well as heat, so I am happy to deal with the facts. I remind the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that I was not in the Chamber for my right hon. Friend's statement because I was in the United States; otherwise, I would have made the statement myself. I have read it, however, and the truth is that she simply gave the facts. There is a big difference between trying to get to the facts and blaming staff, as was illustrated by the example of BSE that was cited a moment ago. Somebody had made the decisions, so somebody was to blame, but in the end nobody was blamed. Well, fair do's: if nobody is to blame for anything, nobody is accountable for anything. We are accountable and responsible for our policies. I am responsible and accountable even when I have not devised the policies because that is our constitution, which goes back a very long way. As someone who did politics at university, I am fully familiar with its niceties.
	Let me deal with the context of the events. For example, let us consider the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that we inherited a golden era of immigration and asylum control. In fact, we inherited a complete shambles in 1997. The previous Government did not have an electronic fingerprinting system; they had a computer that had broken down, and it took 20 months to process the initial decision on asylum compared with two months now. There were 54,000 outstanding cases whereas there is now less than half that number. Fewer than 9,000 people were removed every year, whereas last year we removed 17,000 asylum seekers as well as 12,000 other illegal immigrants. If the Opposition want to bandy words about who inherited a shambles and who did something about that, we are happy to do so.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Citizenship and Immigration has been instrumental in turning the system around in the past 18 months. She has ensured that, instead of a 45 per cent. increase in asylum claims, there has been a 50 per cent. drop in the past year. [Interruption]. I mention asylum only because there has been a clever attempt to combine the word "asylum" with the immigration allegations that have been made in the past three weeks, to the point where even a BBC political reporter did that on the news yesterday. That is not surprising because some of the newspapers that have jumped on the bandwagon have hinted—they have not told lies because not telling the truth is good enough for them—that the matter related to the asylum system rather than entry clearance, and to those who were already in the country and having their cases reaffirmed. [Hon. Members: "Blame civil servants and the media."] I was not blaming anybody but simply pointing out that there is a desire to confuse the system. It exists because some people deeply oppose any inward immigration to this country.

George Osborne: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall in a moment. When we published our White Paper two years ago, we set out a clear, balanced policy and a comprehensive approach to immigration, nationality and asylum. We said that we wanted to clamp down on those who entered the country clandestinely. We wanted people who did not have a legitimate asylum claim to apply openly and legitimately to come into the country to work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment. People inside and outside the House have opposed that balanced policy throughout. I want to make it clear that we are sticking to it. Whatever the allegations, whatever the truth of the matter, we shall not be diverted into believing that everybody who applies to enter our country—those who want to work or happen to have a foreign name, a different nationality or religion—is somehow suspect and up to no good, and should be rejected.

Andrew Selous: The Home Secretary spoke of the importance of good community relations. All hon. Members agree with that. However, does he accept that the failure to remove 250,000 failed asylum seekers since 1997 has the potential fatally to undermine the ability to build good community relations in this country?

David Blunkett: Doubling the removals of those who are not here legitimately has helped. Identity cards would be a major step forward in ensuring that we knew who was in the country, whether they were entitled to services and whether they had been authorised to draw on those services. It would also make the reinstitution of embarkation procedures, which the previous Government abandoned, at least a possibility. At the moment, it is not.

Stephen McCabe: There are two central issues. The first is the specific charges of fraud, which need to be fully investigated; the second is that we have deliberately misused the European Community Association Agreements system, which the previous Government introduced. It has been put to me that the charge constitutes nothing more than naked opportunism. If there is any substance in the allegations, surely we need to know what happened when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary. Should not we be able to compare the previous Government's policy with the current one? Should not all documents and memos that relate to that period be disclosed so that everyone in the country can see the whole picture and the whole truth?

David Blunkett: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 will allow that to happen next year.

George Osborne: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: In a moment. I simply want to make the point clearly that we need a properly managed, correctly authorised and accurately reported asylum and nationality system that rejects those who should not be in the country but welcomes those who should.
	I want to deal specifically with the four issues that the media raised in the past few weeks.

Neil Gerrard: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I want to make a point about responsibility. Will he cast his mind back to the backlog clearances that took place in the past and remember who was responsible for conducting them in 1993? The details were never made public. Yet the results of such exercises in the past few years have been announced and Ministers have clearly stated the criteria for them.

David Blunkett: We all remember who was Home Secretary in 1993 and we shall remind the public of that repeatedly between now and the general election. We are dealing not with naked opportunism, to use the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), but opportunism clothed in concern by those who want to get it right only when it suits them to put the evidence in the public arena.

David Cameron: Will the Home Secretary give way?

George Osborne: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall do so once and then I shall deal with the four allegations.

David Cameron: Given the state of affairs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) described, will the Home Secretary give a guarantee that anyone else who comes forward to tell him what is happening in his Department, about which he apparently does not know, will not be suspended or sacked?

David Blunkett: I have made it clear that people who use the normal whistleblower procedure or the new hotline will not be disciplined for producing evidence. Let us show some maturity: I do not know everything that goes on, with the tens of thousands of people that my Department employs directly or indirectly. Any politician who pretended that they did would be stupid or duplicitous. We are neither.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall in a moment but first I want to deal with the four allegations. Two were straightforward and would not normally have been viewed as a cause celebre and, as I said earlier, two raised profound issues that need to be tackled. The first of the latter was the Moxon allegations. Whatever that individual's background and whatever statements he may have made, he deserved to be taken seriously. The review was set up to examine what he had alleged. The allegations related to the accession countries and what would happen before 1 May.
	It was alleged that fast-tracking had been authorised to get people through the system and thus reduce the number of people who were seen to come in and register after 1 May. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State's head was supposedly on the block and her resignation was called for because of that. First, the allegations were proved to be entirely untrue: she had not authorised any change in practice in relation to fast track. Secondly, 80 per cent. of the cases were of people already in the country whose stays were being reauthorised. Even if one is not terribly intelligent, it is not difficult to understand that one cannot fast-track people into the country who are already here. Therefore, one cannot be accused and found guilty of fiddling the figures—that was the allegation—so that those people would not be counted from 1 May. Despite all the hysteria, that allegation did not stand up to scrutiny.

Nick Palmer: The civil servant who made the original allegations, who reportedly believes that Muslims will need to be dealt with by nuclear weapons, is today quoted as saying that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is
	"not long for the political world".
	Does my right hon. Friend think that that is a matter for a civil servant to decide? How confident is he that there is no political agenda involved?

David Blunkett: I am trying desperately to keep the debate on a level that addresses facts and issues. People will have to draw their own conclusion both about behaviour in the Chamber and how people have been dealing with these matters outside. The facts in relation to the case that was put by Mr. Moxon, whose subsequent revelations will lead people to make judgments about his motives, need to be set aside.
	After the Moxon suggestions, we had the e-mail from Mr. James Cameron, which was sent, as I understand it, on 8 March. As I spelled out, that was the day on which the review began. Incidentally, that was just four days after Mr. Cameron had been in the same room as one of my senior officials in Bucharest, along with others, talking about the very issues that we are debating this afternoon.
	On 1 and 2 March, Mr. Cameron was quite properly in a meeting with a senior official from my Department. That official was seeking to get to the truth about the allegations and behaviour involved. When he came back, he wrote a note indicating that he would take action on the appropriate lines to ensure that the allegations were properly investigated. As he had indicated that, I was surprised to learn that, four or five days later, these allegations were made as if no one had been listening or taken any action at all—[Interruption.] No, I am not smearing anyone. Perhaps it would be better if I did not give the facts so people could just have their prejudices. I am merely spelling out that tightening checks and investigating concerns are not the prerogative of the Opposition. It happens that my staff were, rightly, concerned about that and prepared to act on it. Therefore, the Cameron allegations must be taken seriously, unlike the second allegation, which was about the backlog reduction accelerated clearance exercise.

George Osborne: If there were concerns about the Cameron allegations before they were expressed in the e-mail, why were they not investigated by the Sutton inquiry? In addition, if the Secretary of State is in charge of his Department, why do so many civil servants feel that they must send missives to the Opposition? Why do civil servants in his Department feel that they cannot use internal channels to raise their concerns?

David Blunkett: First, Mr. Cameron is not a member of my staff, but that does not change the issue. We should not bandy words about which civil servants leaked what to whom, because we had a bellyful of receiving e-mails and faxes when we were in opposition, some of which were accidental, as the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will recall, including finding her diary and handing it back to her. I put that on the record because it is important to show that politicians have some integrity. We remember what we received and did not receive from nefarious sources when we were in opposition, and that will continue.
	I will come back to James Cameron in a moment. The second allegation was about the clearance exercise, which was not only in line with practice developed from the late 1980s, as was described a moment ago, but entirely sensible and in accord with the practice that we would have expected to be laid down, not necessarily authorised by current Ministers but certainly authorised in the past by Ministers. The second call for my right hon. Friend to resign was therefore absolutely spurious, and had no basis in fact.
	The third allegation was even more ridiculous and concerned applications for citizenship. With security checks still in place, character checks and references still taken up, full immigration history still undertaken, and after a risk assessment and 100 per cent. tally with passport checks on visits overseas, it was decided not to recall people's passports that had already been in the possession of staff dealing with those cases. Again, a call was made for my right hon. Friend's resignation on a completely spurious issue designed to muddy the waters on the premise that if one flings enough mud, repeats things often enough, and feeds something into the equation on a daily, weekly or Sunday Times basis, eventually something will stick.
	I want to make something clear. The Sunday Times, the Tory party and anyone else can keep on throwing mud, but my right hon. Friend is not resigning, she is not being sacked and she has the total support of this side of the House and everyone who has dealt with her.

Clive Soley: My right hon. Friend is right to pinpoint The Sunday Times, which is full of dishonesties and inaccuracies on stories of this nature. This one was particularly untrue. Is he aware that its editor is a man called John Witherow, of whom the vast majority of the public will not have heard because of his hiding behind a wall of privacy? He is fond of misleading the public and charging them money for the privilege of being misled, but has never thought about resigning himself. I can tell my right hon. Friend that in 100 years, not one editor has resigned for giving inaccurate information or lying to the public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long. The Home Secretary has got the point.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend, in his usual acerbic way, makes a point. My relations with The Sunday Times are bad enough as they are, so I will not make them any worse by commenting on it.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend was describing the process that has been under way over the last few weeks. Does he recall that, a few moments ago, the shadow Home Secretary claimed that not until this weekend did he know about previous backlog clearance exercises? Would he be interested to know that on 14 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, at which she spoke openly about the BRACE exercise? Would he also be interested to know that in the audience when she said that was the shadow Home Secretary? Does the Home Secretary agree that, although these issues are serious, some of the outrage is a trifle synthetic?

David Blunkett: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The allegations included one that my right hon. Friend the Minister would not come to the House, as if she had not just been in front of the Home Affairs Committee, answered the private notice question, dealt with Home Office questions at the beginning of last week—[Interruption.] Of course, we took it for granted. I am merely advising colleagues about the allegations that she had not done so. I heard those allegations on the radio. One can say things on the radio and be heard. That is a fact; I have discovered it. Those things can be recorded and used in evidence against one, which is why programmes such as "Question Time" and "Any Questions" are so boring nowadays. One has to be so careful about what one says, which makes life much less entertaining.
	Let me return to something that is not at all entertaining—

Alice Mahon: May I say something before my right hon. Friend does that? I do not think that I could be described by any Member as a Whips' woman, but may I now say how delighted I am that my right hon. Friend has defended the Minister of State so vigorously? As a humble Back Bencher who deals with her Department regularly, may I say that she probably has the worst job in Government, but that she does it extremely well? She is always available and is a very committed Minister.

David Blunkett: I could not have put it better myself, and someone who is normally the scourge of the Front Bench is probably the best person to say it.

Paul Farrelly: The Home Secretary has described the exemplary record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) as a Minister. May I record my appreciation, and that of my constituents, of the timely, courteous and entirely proper way in which she has dealt with immigration inquiries that I have raised with her? I am sure that Members in all parts of the House share my experience.

David Blunkett: I entirely agree. But let me now return to Mr. James Cameron, because the allegations are genuinely serious and require action.
	I said that Mr. Cameron had been at a meeting with one of my senior officials in Bucharest at the beginning of March. Shortly before that meeting, a clearly undesirable lawyer had been arrested. As the shadow Home Secretary said, the lawyer has been involved in fraud and unacceptable illegal dealings relating to entry to this country from Romania and Bulgaria. This individual was picked up at the end of February, a week before the e-mail was sent, and will appear in court on 29 April. That was part of the ongoing National Criminal Intelligence Service work that Mr. Cameron was generous enough to mention at the end of his e-mail.
	I have mentioned both the NCIS work and the lawyer's arrest to show that, far from being behind the door, my officials, the enforcement agencies and all concerned have been working assiduously to try and ensure that the right things are done. One of the allegations—that lawyers were not being pursued, and the enforcement and intelligence agencies were not doing their job—was quite simply untrue. If it is true that staff in Sheffield were dealing with matters in an unwarranted fashion, we must look into that, and look into who gave the instruction. I agree that low-level staff should not be blamed for what is not of their making.

James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I will in a moment, but I want to finish the point.
	In February, middle managers in Sheffield were concerned about fast-track clearing from Bulgaria and Romania, so they reverted to more detailed assessment. I have announced today that we are stopping all entry from Romania and Bulgaria, because that should be done while we get this right. When I met the Romanian Prime Minister last year, we stressed—as we stressed to the Interior Minister two weeks ago—that part of the movement towards full accession and the lifting of visa regimes from Romania and Bulgaria would depend on getting to grips with criminality, illegal and forged documentation and an atmosphere and culture that lead naturally to suspicion.

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend speaks of necessary measures, but in the long term is it not right to bear it in mind that many immigrants from Romania have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom—not least Mr. Bernat Hecht, the father of the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot be blamed for the subsequent sins of his son?

David Blunkett: I certainly do not want any of my sons to be blamed for my activities.
	Let me put this on record. As soon as the lawyer was arrested at the end of February, staff in Sheffield—sensibly, from their point of view—not only suspended dealing with cases that had been handled by him, but recalled those that had already been dealt with. Our staff are caring. They do give a damn. They wanted to get this right, and—I say this very forcefully—they were not under instructions from any Minister to do other than follow the procedure, deal with the law and uphold what we would consider to be decent, proper, professional standards.

Tim Boswell: A few moments ago, the Home Secretary spoke of his dealings with the Romanian Prime Minister last year, and a strong reprimand—my word, but I think that it summarises the position reasonably—or warning to him about the dangers of improper practice in relation to visa applications. If the Home Secretary made those remarks to the Romanian Prime Minister at that time, presumably he did so following advice from officials in or around Bucharest, and from his own Department. If he had that advice, why did Mr. Cameron's revelations this month apparently come as a surprise that required a complete reversal of policy?

David Blunkett: The specific allegations made by Mr. Cameron go much further than allegations made previously. The e-mail does not simply say what Mr. Cameron said to my senior official at the meeting, or what was said to his immediate colleagues. In the light of that, and in the light of the mistrust, misapprehension and concern that now exist among the public—understandably, given what they have been reading—it is sensible to try and bottom this once and for all.
	Yes, I did know that there were difficulties. Jointly with the Foreign Office, we had a conference here in London attended by Prime Ministers from all over south-eastern Europe. The publicity is on record and shows that we discussed the real issues of organised crime that we debated here yesterday afternoon. I was surprised that the revelations came after that statement rather than as part of it, because we are dealing with exactly the issues of trans-border and cross-border organised criminality that we discussed yesterday. It is because of such issues that we are establishing the serious organised crime agency. We have been aware of them, and the Romanians themselves are aware of them. That is why they have been prepared to work so closely with NCIS and to have our staff working with them on both immigration and border controls and on drug enforcement.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has made one of the most sensible points that we have heard in all this. In the context of migration from south-east Europe, we know that we are dealing with criminality and possibly even with terrorism. The allegation that our right hon. Friend the Minister of State would collude in that is not just ridiculous but goes so far over the top that I think Opposition Members should consider their own position. Having alleged a lack of integrity on the part of our right hon. Friend, unless they can demonstrate that she had a motive, the charge is not against her but against the Opposition Front Benchers.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a central issue. If, for the fourth time, there is a call for my right hon. Friend's resignation, on what basis is it made? To substantiate it—having not substantiated the three earlier calls—those issuing it would have to show that she had authorised or condoned the actions that Mr. Cameron alleged to be taking place, which are now to be investigated and about which a further allegation has been made this afternoon by the shadow Home Secretary. There has to be some route back from the authorisation or condoning of the sort of gross illegality that has been alleged. That is why I agree that making allegations is easy, but providing facts to back them up is much more difficult.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

David Blunkett: I will give way in case a fact is about to emerge.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He has now twice told the House that on 8 October one of his senior officials went to Bucharest to investigate what was going on there. Was that a routine investigation and, if not, why was the Sutton inquiry not asked to investigate those matters, too? Does it not show that the Sutton inquiry was not in possession of the full facts and therefore not a thorough inquiry?

David Blunkett: I said that my senior official went on 1 and 2 March, and I pointed out that the Sutton review was about the first of the spurious allegations and was being investigated. The subsequent allegations, including those made in the e-mail sent on 8 March, but not revealed by the shadow Home Secretary until last night, were an entirely different issue. I have already said that the blending of all the different issues together is understandable as clever politics, but it is wholly a tactic rather than a reality of fact.
	I have therefore disentangled points one, two and three this afternoon. We dealt with the first through the review; the second and third were spurious and, in any case, conformed to the practice of previous Home Secretaries—of which, incidentally, I approve and take responsibility for. The fourth is now about to be investigated. Those are all nothing more than allegations against a Minister who has done so much to reinforce our border controls, and to tackle—she will announce it in a few days' time—months of work on sham marriages, bogus student applications and the lack of proper controls that we inherited from the previous Government. She has done a fantastic job on turning round the asylum system. Of course, our opponents, who have to move on to the next issue, have tried to present what we have been doing in getting a grip on the system as a shambles.
	Those who have made the allegations this afternoon have failed to make their case. They have failed to demonstrate the facts and failed to demonstrate again and again that calls for my right hon. Friend's resignation were justified. That is why we stand four-square behind her. We are getting to the truth by all means and reassuring people that we know what we are doing. We are ensuring that we have a balanced nationality, immigration and asylum policy, and we are proud of the work that we have been able to do so far. We are determined to ensure that no one undermines that policy, whether through illegal activity outside our country, through sloppy work inside it, through lawyers—I have indicated that a lawyer has been arrested—or through a failure of enforcement.
	All of that will be taken into account in the review, but, in the end, we have to make a judgment. Has the Minister of State done a first-class job? We all know that she has, so the answer to that question is yes, yes, yes. That is why she has our unequivocal backing and will continue to do so.

Mark Oaten: This is a serious debate, and I am glad that the Home Secretary has acknowledged that some of the issues raised, particularly in the most recent allegations, are indeed serious. I wish to examine the allegations in some detail and also examine some of the operations taking place in the Department, particularly those of the immigration and nationality directorate. There have been calls for the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration to resign, so I shall also look at some of the reasons behind those demands for her resignation.
	Before I go into the detail, I would like to make a general observation about the climate in which the debate is taking place. I am convinced that if we did not live in a society where issues of migration, asylum and immigration were sometimes deliberately muddled and confused, and where we had to respond to so much nonsense in the tabloid press, some of the misunderstandings and the actions of individual civil servants would not have happened in the first place. In a climate where politicians and Ministers are so frightened to explain transparently and in some detail what they are planning to do—in other words, their precise intentions on asylum and migration—the real issues will be buried and hidden away, leading to the sort of confusions that have emerged over the last couple of weeks. I believe that all sides have a responsibility to improve the quality of debate on asylum and migration issues, so that we do not end up with the sort of debate that we are having now—a debate that is the consequence of the climate in which we live.
	Clearly, the allegations that have emerged over the past three or four weeks are of serious concern. This country cannot have a system of immigration that is open to different levels of interpretation in different Government offices and that is not transparent. The House should be able to know exactly what Government policy on immigration is and we should not allow decisions to be taken, as it would appear, without clear ministerial approval.
	The issues are complex and hard to understand, so I want to look in detail at the three basic allegations that have been made. The first could be described as the Moxon/Sheffield set of allegations. In layman's terms, they suggest that a policy was in place to fast-track in-country applications from EU accession country nationals. It is alleged that rather than going through the usual detailed paper process, a simpler application base was used and that the policy was put in place not necessarily to deal with a three-month backlog, but from day one in order to speed up the process. Sutton has investigated that and I am happy to accept Sutton's conclusion that, on the specific allegations made by Moxon, the Minister did no wrong.
	The second allegation can best be described as The Sunday Times memo. It was written by Graham Austin and Moira Bing to senior immigration officials at the casework directorate at Croydon. Again in layman's terms, it suggests that there is a policy to waive through immigration applications if they take more than three months and that those applications are for a range of permits—family visits, spouses, domestic workers and so forth. The memo stated:
	"As there is a large number of applications that are over three months old waiting to be decided it has been agreed at ministerial level that an enhanced procedure should be undertaken to clear these as quickly as possible."
	It goes on clearly to state that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration approved the exercise. It is alleged that there was a new procedure for fast-track applications. Even though that was not examined by the Sutton inquiry, I am prepared to accept the Home Office view that it was not a new policy, but standard practice which had been applied to in-country applications for some time.

Beverley Hughes: For the record, Ken Sutton explicitly dealt with the backlog reduction accelerated clearance exercise. Many people may have read my ministerial statement and various commentaries, but not the Sutton report itself. If they read it, they would find that it refers expressly to BRACE and its predecessor.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful for that clarification. My understanding was that the particular allegations and the memo presented to The Sunday Times had not been submitted to Sutton and that we had therefore not had independent clarification of the allegation by a national newspaper, which we did have in respect of the Moxon/Sheffield case.

Beverley Hughes: For further clarification, the particular minute dealt with my intervention in the case of Mrs. Martin, which Members will recall arose about a year ago. Mrs. Martin was an American woman who came here with her British husband after the second world war. She had lived here for 40 years and had several children. Under BRACE, taking a decision on the basis of the papers, Mrs. Martin's case for settlement was refused because she could not prove that she had lived in the country for 40 years. I intervened to say that that was not a sensible decision in cases such as hers. I said that such a refusal on the basis of the papers under BRACE should be referred to a senior caseworker to ensure that it was a sensible decision.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for clarifying that point.
	On the second allegation, which relates to The Sunday Times memo, I accept the Home Secretary's assertion that this procedure has been in place for some time. However, I have two concerns, the first of which relates to the word that he used yesterday on the Floor of the House. He said that such applications were "substantially" in-country applications. It would help if he clarified what he meant by "substantially". As I understand it, some 80 per cent. of applications are in-country, which means that some 20 per cent. are not. It is important that we do not simply assume that, in all such cases, we are simply recycling the numbers.

Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the official Opposition require a quorum when it is their motion that is being debated? I can see only four of them in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, he is making a political point, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mark Oaten: So, these applications are not just in-country applications. We need to acknowledge that a number of outside-country applications are involved.
	The third allegation, which is by far the most serious, relates to the Cameron e-mail, as we might best describe it. Cameron clearly claims that normal checks were being waived in respect of certain countries that are among the next wave of EU member countries, and the Home Secretary is right to say that that claim is serious. Cameron's memo states that
	"no right-minded entry clearance officers would consider issuing a visa to these applications".
	That hard-hitting statement raises a number of serious issues and, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, concern also exists about the activities of certain lawyers. The Cameron memo also states that there is evidence that one lawyer helped more than 500 applicants. Incidentally, such help cost each client between £1,000 and £2,000. Those are serious allegations, and I should make it absolutely clear that we have no time for a system that allows clearly bogus applicants to fast-track the system in that way. We are also extremely concerned about the activities of certain lawyers, and when the Minister responds I hope that she can say a little more about what is being done to crack down on them. It is clear that a rip-off is taking place in some of those countries, and that there is another, hidden story behind the detail.
	Those are the allegations, and although I accept that the Minister does not have a case to answer in respect of the first two, there is a strong need for a proper inquiry into the third. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary did not acknowledge that such an inquiry should be independent; instead, he wants to establish another internal Home Office inquiry.

Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to examine how a climate has been created within a Government Department in which such short cuts can be contemplated? Surely one reason is that this Government are being target-driven by public relations presentation, in order to justify certain policies in a difficult environment. That is one key reason why nobody has any confidence in what the Government say any more.

Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that touches on my opening remarks. While we live in this climate, which was caused in large part by his own party, Ministers will adopt a public relations, target-driven approach, rather than tackling and talking about the issues in an honest and up-front way.

Tom Watson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking on this issue in a cool and sober way, and on the fact that more Liberal Democrats are present than Conservatives, even though it is a Conservative-initiated debate. He talks about the need for a proper debate, but does he agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who said that immigration was
	"an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt"?
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate has more to do with Conservative PR than with the real issue of fraud?

Mark Oaten: There are surely some among the so-called official Opposition who believe that this issue will help them to win votes at the next general election. However, it did not seem to do the Conservatives much good when they raised it during the 1997 and 2001 elections. So one of three allegations is serious and worthy of investigation, and I say again to the Home Secretary that I am disappointed that such an investigation will not be independent.
	I turn to the allegation that is not talked about, but which constitutes the wider problem: the underlying culture within the Departments and the way in which they are run. The Sutton report considered this issue in some detail and raised a number of concerns. It is a great pity, incidentally, that the report was pushed out last week, on a day when endless Government announcements were made. As a result, it did not receive the coverage and detailed examination that it deserved. Sutton revealed a serious breakdown in the managerial process. Some of its recommendations are quite remarkable. Recommendation No. 5 says that the immigration and nationality directorate should produce for all staff a guidance note outlining how IND policy is developed. That is breathtaking. No Department should need to produce guidance notes on its own policy. If such guidance was necessary, it should have been provided ages ago, rather than being provided now in the form of a recommendation.
	Recommendation No. 6 says that all staff new to IND at grade 7 or 6 should undergo training on policy and working with Ministers. It is breathtaking that such policy guidance and training was not in place to begin with. The fact that it was necessary for an internal inquiry to recommend that training be given to staff on how to work with Ministers illustrates that a complete failure has occurred.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces what I said earlier, and describes the difficulties that officials encounter in interpreting Ministers' policy guideline wishes. As a result, a breakdown in communication occurs, and such a breakdown is surely squarely the responsibility of both the Minister and the Secretary of State.

Mark Oaten: One of two things is being demonstrated. The Department failed because proper training was not in place and policy guidance was not given to officials in the first place; or Ministers' new guidance is so complex, or it changes so quickly, that front-line staff have been unable to keep up. Whichever of those is true, it is clear that something has gone wrong.
	Recommendation No. 7 is also breathtaking. It says that technical expertise should be included for those deciding cases. Of course it should. The implication—that those deciding cases did not have the technical expertise in the first place—is astonishing. If we are to have confidence in the system, the individuals involved in complex cases should have such expertise in the first place. Why were they allowed to do what is a complex job for such a long time without the necessary skills and knowledge? We should not need to wait for an internal inquiry to come up with such an obvious and basic recommendation. There is a serious case to answer in respect of that fourth allegation, but Sutton touches on only some of the managerial problems that existed.
	I want to ask a few questions of the Minister and the Home Secretary, and to discuss the list placed by the Home Secretary in the Library last night concerning the backlog clearance process that has taken place since the 1980s. I acknowledge that that principle and that process began under Conservative Governments, but does the Home Secretary not accept that his Government have gone further than the Conservatives in respect of backlog clearing? Why was it decided that the BRACE scheme would kick in only after a 12-month delay? He has changed the guidelines, and the scheme now kicks in after a three-month delay. Is that not a clear acknowledgement that the system is getting out of control?
	Can the Minister say more about the plan to tackle the clear pressure to which the IND is being subjected? In his Library note, the Home Secretary said that he believed that the introduction of charges for applications on leave to remain would give the IND an opportunity to invest more, and to move towards "high standards". It is true that from 1 August 2003, there has been a big increase in the charges for applications. Can the Minister explain where that money is going, how much money has been raised by that increase in the charge and how much money has gone directly to improving the quality of IND and exactly how many extra staff will be employed? There is clearly a pressure, a backlog and a burden on staff, and I hope that the Minister can explain how many additional staff will be employed to clear that backlog.
	What is the position of the so-called whistleblowers? Where do Mr. Moxon and Mr. Cameron stand in relation to their employment? Are they both under investigation? What kind of hearing will they have? Have either of them broken any codes that they signed in relation to employment? Based on what I have heard in relation to Mr. Cameron, I have concerns about the way in which a consul or other diplomat, who must surely be privy to extremely privileged information, has operated in sending that e-mail.
	While I want a system in place that protects whistleblowers, I acknowledge that some individuals, especially in consulates or embassies, hold positions of enormous trust. I do not necessarily argue that the two individuals who have been referred to should be reinstated. That is one of my concerns about the Conservative motion, which implies that those individuals should be praised as heroes and reinstated. I do not take that line, but I hope that the Minister will explain that they will be treated fairly and under which codes of conduct they will be processed.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his attitude to civil servants. I welcome what he said about whistleblowers, but when it comes to disciplinary action is it not the duty of the House to avoid political interference? The matter should surely be one for the civil service.

Mark Oaten: I entirely accept that. I hope that the process that the Minister sets out for any disciplinary action will be independent and clear and will be undertaken according to the proper codes. I am sure that it will.

David Lepper: Is the hon. Gentleman acknowledging that there is a proper process in place for whistleblowers to report their concerns and have them investigated and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced extensions to that process with a website and a hotline? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we heard from the official Opposition earlier suggested that no such system was in place and that the only recourse for civil servants who are concerned about certain practices is to shoot off e-mails or messages to the press or the official Opposition?

Mark Oaten: I do not accept that. Clearly, in this case, the individuals did not feel able to go to senior managers and they decided to send e-mails in a different direction. So there has been a problem with the process, and the climate in the Department is not one in which individuals feel that they can go through the proper process. For whatever reasons, the individuals involved felt that they had to go to the tabloid press or Opposition parties. So there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

David Cameron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Moxon's options were effectively closed down because he sent an e-mail to the Minister's private office and received no answer for two months? He could not really go to his senior officials because they were the ones who had apparently introduced the illegal policy without consulting Ministers. What was he meant to do?

Mark Oaten: I accept that Mr. Moxon made a number of attempts to send an e-mail to the Minister, but the process by which whistleblowers should raise a concern should not involve sending an e-mail to the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. They should understand that those Ministers will be bombarded by endless e-mails. If the system is to work properly, there has to be someone within an organisation whom employees can approach rather than having to go to a national newspaper or to a Minister. Clearly there has been a failure and it needs to be addressed. Proper procedures need to be put in place.

Tom Watson: Given that it took the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) two weeks to answer his e-mails, can we forgive my colleague on the Front Bench for not taking note of some of hers?

Mark Oaten: I am sure that none of us wants to examine how long it takes us to respond to e-mails at any given time.
	As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, there was valid criticism of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen for jumping slightly too quickly in their relationship with Mr. Moxon. I am on the record as saying that I met Mr. Moxon in the morning and it was clear to me that he was a troublemaker. Just a few alarm bells started to ring in my mind. They did not seem to ring down the corridor in a different office. However, the Conservative Front-Bench team seems to have learned a lesson in relation to the Cameron e-mail. I accept, as the Home Secretary accepts, that it was right not to draw conclusions immediately from an e-mail—e-mails are not signed—but to take some time to check out the source. So on this occasion we can excuse the Conservatives for the delay in responding.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's generosity in taking yet another intervention. He has criticised the wording of the Opposition motion in a particular regard. Is it his opinion that the allegations made by the shadow Home Secretary—I wrote down the words that he used at the time—of "collusion", "cover-up" and "incompetence" are extremely serious when there is not a shred of evidence that the Minister of State or the Home Secretary authorised any such activity? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the serious words used by the shadow Home Secretary?

Mark Oaten: The hon. Lady has a valid point. The shadow Home Secretary was clear in the language that he used and the allegations that he made. I shall come shortly to those allegations and how they relate to the Minister of State. They are important. One of the only ways in which we shall clear up the allegations is to set up an independent review. The hothouse of allegations around here means nothing. An independent review could check whether such allegations have any merit.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may agree that the evidence is already pretty clear that the Government have been at some pains at departmental levels to avoid publicising some of the things that they have been doing in relation to entry clearance. We have that on the documentation that has become available.
	In terms of the Government's way of going about their business, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is already pretty clear that on that level there has been a cover-up?

Mark Oaten: The phrase "cover-up" can be interpreted in many different ways. When it comes to the serious matter of asking a Minister to resign, do we believe that a general allegation that the Government have covered something up is a resigning issue? I argue that it is not. All Governments manage their stories to put across the best message. For goodness sake, if people had to resign for doing that, none of us would be left in this Chamber.

David Heath: Apart from you.

Mark Oaten: Not even me.
	I move on to the timing in relation to the applicants who were so close to the 1 May deadline and EU accession. I understand that in a busy office with a pile of papers to go through one might say, "What is the point of rejecting this application when in just a few months, on 1 May, this national will have full EU membership? Let's just let this one go through." But the Government have a policy of taking other applications right up to the 30 April deadline. They have made it clear that for asylum applications from the Czech Republic the deadline should be 30 April. Surely there has to be some consistency. What guidance is being issued in relation to applicants from countries that are just a couple of weeks away from becoming EU members?
	The Home Secretary has announced that he is suspending all immigration applications from Bulgaria and Romania. Is the Minister comfortable with that? Has the decision been legally checked? Is the process legal? Does she believe that the decision could be challenged legally? If it is legal and necessary due to the concerns of the Home Office, does she believe that there is a case for widening it to apply to other countries? Is she sure that the kind of practice that Mr. Cameron has exposed in Bulgaria and Romania is not taking place in other countries? Surely there is a case for the investigation that the Home Office has announced into those countries to be expanded to consider practice in other countries; otherwise, we may have to have another debate in six months' time, after we have had another leaked memo from a different consul in a different part of the world.
	I come to the sensitive issue of the Minister's position. I have found the Minister to be able and polite, and during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, my colleagues and I found her to be open, frank, honest, helpful, clear and plain-speaking. I have nothing but respect for the Minister. I have never, in seven years of doing this job, called for another politician to resign. That is done on a knee-jerk basis, far too often and I am uncomfortable with the constant calls for individuals to resign. However, on this occasion, I have had to consider the issue, because the press have asked me endlessly whether I support the Conservatives' calls for the Minister to resign.
	In considering the issue, I have had to analyse several points. First, did the Minister ignore warnings from officials? The Sutton inquiry found that she did not ignore the warnings on the specific allegations and that in fact some of those warnings did not get through to her. On that ground, there is no case. Secondly, did the Minister mislead the House? That is one of the most serious allegations that can be made and is a reason for individuals to resign if they have done so. Again, despite some of the comments in the memo in The Sunday Times about the Minister knowing about the process, I am clear that there is a difference between her authorising that process and the allegations that were made when she came to the House on 8 March.
	Thirdly, has the Minister got to grips with the management process? Sutton does set out some concerns about what is taking place in the Department. I know that the Minister has said on the airwaves that she has been responsible for sorting out the chaos and introducing procedures to try to improve matters. However, she still has a case to answer on some of the problems in her Department. Fourthly, should a Minister be held to account for managerial failures? That is the most complex and difficult question because increasingly Ministers say—with some justification—that something is an operational issue, and not a ministerial responsibility. However, the extension of that argument leads to questions of where democratic accountability lies and where the buck stops. There are concerns that the Minister has not got to grips with the managerial process.
	In the circumstances, it does not appear to me that a case can be made for the Minister to resign. That is why we have not supported such calls. However—and I hope that the Minister and the Home Secretary will consider this—because of the public concern about what has happened in the Department, Ministers should agree to a full inquiry into the Cameron allegations, and a broadening of the remit of Sutton to examine the procedures in place in the immigration and nationality directorate. The concerns are so severe that a wider independent inquiry should take place. The Minister's future should be decided after that, and not in the hothouse of the television studios or the Chamber where it is too easy to call for resignations.
	Those of us who wish to speak tolerantly about asylum and immigration—who wish to argue that the country is not going to be flooded and that we should have a mature debate—are undermined enormously if the information and figures from the Government are not accurate. That does not help us in making our case. That is why a full, independent and public inquiry into the facts should take place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should advise the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on Back Bench speeches, which will apply from now on.

Frank Dobson: I am sorry to have to speak in this debate, because I had hoped for better from a Tory party led by the child of someone who was a refugee from Romania. However, if one has any expectations of the Tory party, one is frequently disappointed. My right hon. Friend the Minister is being pursued as part of a deliberate strategy by the Conservatives to stir up antipathy towards people coming to this country. The Conservatives do not give a damn about the damage that that does to community relations. As far as they are concerned, a few cheap hits in the House of Commons are worth it, even if they result in some expensive hits on the streets and estates of this country. Those of us who represent constituencies where various communities manage to live happily with one another—including intermarrying—are disgusted by that approach.
	If people think that I exaggerate, all that I can do is remind them—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) has already done—of the stated views of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) when he was director of the Conservative Research Department, even though he is now a shadow health spokesman. He said that immigration was
	"an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt"—
	to hurt whom? It might hurt the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but it will hurt most—many—of our fellow citizens and people who come to this country to try to earn a decent living in peaceful circumstances.
	All over the world, since history began, there have been huge movements of population and they have always presented great difficulties. However, they have been a huge asset to this country. A book published a few years ago, with the strange title "Hitler's Gift", listed all the geniuses whom he drove out of Germany and eastern Europe to this country and north America. They transformed the standard of our mathematics and physics, and we left Germany and eastern Europe far behind. That was a permanent legacy.
	We should also consider the people who have come to this country more recently and the benefits that they have brought to our fellow citizens. For example, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub is the world's greatest heart surgeon and he is welcome. He contributes, and so do hundreds of thousands of other people who have come to this country and made it a better place. We should make them welcome, instead of indulging in cheap stunts in pursuit of Ministers, in the hope of some short-term, shoddy political gain.

David Cameron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I have only 12 minutes and I intend to use them.
	The Government inherited a huge mess in immigration and asylum, with huge delays. The Conservatives apparently confused the amount of time taken to deal with applications with thoroughness, but the two are not necessarily related. The process was not thorough, but it did take a devil of a long time. The Government have set about tackling that problem and have faced enormous difficulties in doing so.
	Things have gone wrong, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister—and she is a friend—will not take offence if I say that the Home Office and the other Departments involved did not cover themselves in glory in relation to events at Morecambe bay and the warnings given by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). We cannot blame an individual Minister for the failure of four Departments to co-ordinate their activities properly. If everybody in the House, on both sides and in all parties, had listened to what Joan Maynard and Dick Body said about gangmasters 20 years ago and had done something about it, those events would never have happened. We cannot blame my right hon. Friend for those failures, because she was not even a Member of Parliament at the time.
	My right hon. Friend has an awful job, but it is done more efficiently than it has been in the past. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years and I know that she achieves a good turn-round on the innumerable letters that I send her. I do not know what else she can manage to do besides answering my letters, because her replies are always thorough and accurate. I believe that other Members write to her, too. She is in a terrible position; when she makes a decision she is denounced by some people as illiberal and by others as limp-wristed and weak, because she has let all sorts of "villainous" people into the country.
	Now we have the Tory party jumping on the bandwagon with a leak from Sheffield. In an excellent speech, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), asked whether the Sheffield civil servant had broken a code of conduct. He may have broken such a code if it turns out that he has pulled a political stunt with the Leader of the Opposition. It is against the civil service code of conduct for a civil servant to appear at a political stunt with the Prime Minister, so it would probably also be the case if he did so with the Leader of the Opposition.
	The Tories are trying to link that to the advice that work permit applicants from the immediate accession countries should be "waved through", because it is so close to when they will be entitled to enter the country anyway. I have news for the Tory party: there is nothing new in that. The Tory party may have no corporate memory, but as the Leader of the Opposition was involved, he should be able to remember that the Home Office acted in the same way in 1995 when Austria, Sweden and Finland were about to join the EU. As we were never told, we do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unwilling, in the words of the motion, "to take responsibility" for the policy, or whether there were "dishonest internal workings" in his Department. He certainly kept quiet about it. Of course, he could say that he was following another Tory precedent, because exactly the same thing happened when Spain and Portugal were accession countries in 1986. As the period of accession drew nearer, the easier it was to enter this country, and eventually work permit applicants were "waved through", but that policy was not disclosed.
	As has been mentioned, in 1992–93, when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, 20,000 people whose applications would otherwise have been turned down were given exceptional leave to remain, yet nothing was said about that. We found out that it had all been done secretly only when the figures were published some years later and had to be explained.
	Of course, there are well organised scams. Indeed, I turn from scams to scum, because the people who organise the trafficking of their fellow human beings are among the scummiest people in the world. It appears that some of them are involved in what is going on in Rumania and Bulgaria and we need to check that and sort it out—and it will be sorted out.
	There is a wider point, however. We are talking about people who are applying for work permits. They will receive a work permit only if we do not have people qualified for the work for which they require the permit. Work permits are going to people in the construction industry, to electricians and plumbers. Why do we not have enough of those workers? It is because the stupid Tory Government, under Mrs. Thatcher, abolished apprenticeships and sold off the training centres that could have trained the skilled people whom we now lack.
	The Tories did not train enough doctors. They cut back on the training of nurses and reduced the number of nurses in training. Despite all that, they had planned to hold a debate later today—until they suddenly, opportunistically, chose to change the topic—about Labour's failure to prepare for doctors' reduced hours. The Tories reduced doctors' hours, but they did not increase the number of doctors to compensate for that. That is how we got into a mess, and the Labour Government are trying to get out of it.
	When Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he mocked our calls for more and better training. He said that the jobs of the future would not necessarily be high-skill or low-skill, but that they would be no-skill jobs. As a result, we have a lot of people with no skills and they are the ones who find it hardest to get a job.
	Today, we see the complete hypocrisy of the Tory party. The Tories left the immigration service in chaos and the Government are improving it. As for blaming officials, we shall take no lessons from the Leader of the Opposition; blaming officials was his stock in trade. The House will remember the famous interview when he said that he was responsible for prisons policy but not for operations. Paxman asked him again and again and again whether he took responsibility for operations in the Prison Service and he denied it. That is another reason why we shall not tolerate this lousy, opportunist, second-rate, smeary effort from the Tories today. [Hon. Members: "Say what you mean."] One of these days, I shall say what I really think about them.
	I want to say something very serious: if this sort of stirring up against people goes on, Islamophobia will grow. Our fellow citizens will be assaulted because they wear a scarf around their head. They will be spat at as they take their children to school and they will find life more and more difficult—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must respect the time conventions as well as everyone else.

James Clappison: I look forward to the day when we hear the frank and unvarnished opinions of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
	Control over borders should be a high priority for Members, in today's world more than ever. Many of our constituents say that there can be fewer high priorities and they expect us to hold the Government to account for the security of our borders and the soundness of the immigration system.
	When something goes wrong, as it has plainly done on several occasions, we need to find out how bad the breakdown of the system is, the extent of what has gone wrong, how long it has been going on and the number of cases affected. Notwithstanding the remarks made from the Treasury Bench earlier, it is clear that something went wrong in the Sheffield department of the Home Office. Indeed, I thought that had been accepted on both sides of the House, but as I listened carefully to the Home Secretary earlier he seemed to be rowing back. He seemed to be trying to suggest that all the allegations made by Mr. Moxon had been disproved and that the Sutton report, to which I shall return in a moment, had completely exonerated the Government.
	On Mr. Moxon, there seems to be an attempt in certain quarters to play the man rather than the ball—something with which we are all far too familiar. Whatever else may be the case about Mr. Moxon, his allegations turned out to be right. The Minister admitted that to the House and said that the procedures that had been followed would be withdrawn, so we do not need to go over that ground today. However, I remind the House that the Government's case then was not that everything was above board and that everything was going right; they said that something had gone wrong but that it was an isolated matter involving local guidance. On 8 March, the Minister told us that she knew nothing about what had gone wrong at the Sheffield office.
	Today, we have heard new allegations that put a rather different complexion on the information that the right hon. Lady gave the House on 8 March and the Select Committee on Home Affairs the next day. They also overtake the Sutton report, which she set up—an internal inquiry by a senior civil servant from her own Department, albeit from a different part of the Department, but still an internal inquiry. The matters that have come up over the last day or so clearly overtake the Sutton report, whose remit restricted Mr. Sutton to looking into a particular range of issues in the Sheffield office. In the final report, which I have read, Mr. Sutton emphasised, above all, that the context for his inquiry was a limited proportion of the casework of the immigration and nationality directorate. That was what he put first and foremost.
	The suggestion that the Home Secretary has confirmed in large measure today is that, in fact, the issues run much wider than those considered by Mr. Sutton and that there was far more irregularity than just that which he considered, covering far more issues. As Mr. Cameron apparently put in his e-mail—one could not do better than this—what was revealed at the Sheffield office earlier this month was just the "tip of the iceberg", and we now need to look at how much of the iceberg remains beneath the surface. Not only is the Sutton report completely overtaken by what has emerged subsequently, but the new matters, which are partly admitted at least, put a completely different complexion on what the right hon. Lady told the House and the Home Affairs Committee earlier this month.
	The right hon. Lady told the House that the relaxed procedures employed by the Sheffield office, about which Mr. Moxon complained, related to people who were already legally in the country and who were seeking to extend their stay. In her statement to the House, she emphasised:
	"It is worth remembering that, principally, the people affected were already lawfully in this country."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1245.]
	Yet in the new allegation, backed by documents, the case is clearly made that relaxed procedures were employed for such people, at least in Romania and Bulgaria, when they sought to enter the country in the first place.
	According to Mr. Cameron—the man behind the report—the procedure involved thousands of applications from those seeking to enter or settle in Britain as students, spouses, au pairs, domestic servants, working holiday makers and dependant relatives of migrants already here. If that is right—it seems to have been admitted that it is right—I am afraid that it does not tally at all with the impression, given by the Minister on 8 March, that those involved were already in the country.
	The Minister needs to tell us just what the state of her knowledge was about the allegations made by Mr. Cameron at the material time. If what Mr. Cameron is saying is right, the defences were down at every stage of the immigration control proceedings. They were down when the applicants applied to enter, and they were down again when people already in the country applied to the Sheffield office to stay.
	How the fraud was dealt with is even more serious. Again, what has transpired puts a completely different complexion on what the right hon. Lady told the House. When she spoke in the House on 8 March, she was at pains to dismiss the question of fraud altogether. I remind her of her words:
	"There was no question of staff being instructed to grant such leave to those whom they believed to be fraudulent."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1245.]
	Breaking away from what she said, we know from what Mr Cameron said that fraud was very much an issue. I have only seen reports of the e-mail sent from the British embassy in Romania, but it would seem that fraud was very much an alarming issue in the case of both Romania and Bulgaria. According the reports that I have seen, the e-mail says:
	"both countries were until March 1 overwhelmed with badly prepared bogus applications. When entry clearance officers write to Sheffield and state clearly that the application is being supported with forged and counterfeit documents the letters are ignored and the applications are still being issued".
	We have heard more details about that, the involvement of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and the extent of bogus applications and irregularities among the legal profession.
	I shall ask the Minister some questions that she has to answer today. Was she aware of the allegations being made by Mr. Cameron when she made statement to the House on 8 March? Was she aware of what he said then? If so, how can she possibly justify the way in which she dismissed the question of fraud out of hand, as she did not only on 8 March on the Floor of the House, but in her evidence to the Home Affairs Committee?
	I turn now to the memo that we have heard about in a separate allegation. The right hon. Lady told the Home Affairs Committee on 9 March—the day after the statement—that the backlog had arisen as a result of matters that took place in the previous autumn. She referred to the BRACE procedure, but she said that it was a longstanding approach to backlogs that simply allowed caseworkers to use discretion if all the papers in certain cases, possibly marriage cases, were not there.
	The memo, which has apparently come from two senior civil servants in the Minister's Department, clearly refers to an enhanced BRACE policy that was implemented in July 2003, with, it is said, the specific approval of the Minister. If so, it puts an entirely different complexion on what she told the Home Affairs Committee, when she said that the policy was not implemented until later last year and that it arose because of backlogs. Was she aware of that memo? Was the memo true? Was the policy implemented with her agreement in 2003—not in response to an individual case, as she told the House in response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), but on a much more widespread basis than she admitted to the hon. Gentleman?
	The memo of July 2003 says:
	"As there are a large number of applications that are over three months old waiting to be decided, it has been agreed at ministerial level that an enhanced procedure should be undertaken to clear these as quickly as possible.
	This note confirms that the decision in this case has been taken under an enhanced procedure for clearing backlog cases, which commenced on 14 July, 2003."
	Why did the Minister not refer to that memo when she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee? She had something to say about BRACE and the backlog procedures. Does the memo not put an entirely different complexion on the evidence about the Sheffield problems that she gave to the Home Affairs Committee?

Tom Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because time is limited.
	The Minister said that the Sheffield matters were all locally determined by staff and had arisen as a result of local problems with a backlog later in the year, but the policy was decided centrally and agreed by Ministers. The right hon. Lady should deal with the question of what she knew about the BRACE procedure and the enhanced procedure in 2003. She should also deal with what she knew about Mr. Cameron and his allegation that the iceberg would have remained completely unknown if it had not been for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They deserve congratulations for bringing this matter to light. They have done a public service, and I commend them on the way in which they have brought the issue to the attention of the House. They are right to do so.

Tom Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: No.
	The Minister now has to face up to her responsibilities. She has been asked many times what responsibility she takes in all this. How does she square her responsibilities with what she has said in the past? What does she accept responsibility for today, given the mess, with all the immigration system's defences down, as described in the memo at the Sheffield office? It is no use the right hon. Lady shaking her head; we want answers. What responsibility does she accept?

Sally Keeble: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate because it touches on one of the issues of greatest concern to my constituents—matters relating to asylum and immigration—and it is precisely for that reason that I believe that the Conservative party has raised it particularly at this time. When an election is coming, the Conservative party talks about immigration. Muddling up debates about eastern Europe and the EU also plays well.

David Cameron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble: No, I will not give way because time is limited.
	I am particularly pleased to support the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done in pushing forward improvements to the asylum system. An awful lot of what is needed in her job is exceptionally unglamorous and does not involve big policy decisions; most of it relates to putting in the proper procedures, seeing them through and getting the systems working. She has done that extraordinarily well, and certainly the recent moves that she has made have produced real benefits for my constituents.
	Shortly after I was elected, I went to look at some of the asylum procedures that were in place in my constituency. A number of people were arriving there, but we inherited the system from the Conservatives, and it was the most ramshackle, non-system that I had ever seen. There was a completely farcical approach to the payment of benefits, there was no networking between the different agencies, and the Conservatives' idea of new technology was a pencil sharpener. There was no proper system for identifying the people who were claiming asylum and receiving benefits. For a party that talks tough about identity cards, it was astonishing to see the total failure to identify properly the people who were coming in and out, claiming benefits and moving around the system. There was also a complete denial of the fact that many people were coming into the country and claiming asylum. If there were not scams then, that was partly because one did not need to run an effective scam to work through what was a totally shambolic system.
	The Labour Government have increasingly put steps in place that have improved the system, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has pushed them through. For example, a new system was put in place for asylum support. Certainly, it faced problems, but it was a distinct improvement on the shambles that we inherited from the Conservative party. A range of different identification documents and cards are in place and they will establish who people and their dependants are. Those documents can be relied on and they replace the lack of documentation in the previous system. There has been an increase in the number of decisions taken, and they have repeatedly been reported to Parliament.
	There has also been an increase in the number of removals. Any Member who visits their police station can ask the police officers there about the number of removals that they have to deal with. There has certainly been in an increase in the number of removals going through Northampton. There has also been open discussion about managed migration, which relates to the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made about ensuring that we have the people to do the jobs that others simply do not want to do.
	In my constituency, there has been, particularly recently, an increase in the number of enforcement actions taken. For example, a successful raid took place today on a factory that employed illegal migrants. Fifty-seven people were stopped and, so far, 33 of them have been arrested and will be removed. I very much welcome the increase in such actions.
	It is certainly true that there is further to go. The Conservative party has highlighted a scam, but it is not the only scam that has ever existed. There should be proper recognition that circumstances have changed over the past couple of years and that an increasingly and extremely sophisticated international industry is engaged in trafficking and the forging and sale of documents. That has made it extremely hard to tackle some of the problems that we confront.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister shares my concerns about the proliferation of forged documents, and I know that she and her Department are also working to tackle the problem. An examination of the forged documents in the possession of the immigration and nationality directorate at Croydon and at Heathrow make it clear that they are produced to an extremely high standard and put through a sophisticated market. However, there is an increasing problem of documents being obtained through apparently legal means and then being used by different people. There are increasing problems of impersonation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will put more resources into dealing with the appalling problem of forgeries that are part of a huge international trade. The people detained today in my constituency were found to be travelling on false documents.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that all these issues are real and that this Government have tackled them by putting in more resources and getting the organisation right? The last thing we need is any future Government threatening cuts in those resources. That would make it impossible in future to tackle the problems created by new technologies.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is right. I was just about to come to that point.
	The Conservative party has been extremely good at talking the talk in the way it did before 1997. It absolutely refused to put in place the steps and procedures that were needed to deal with the problem. Just as it did not have proper procedures for dealing with benefits, it did not have the proper documentation available to check on who people were, or the proper new technology in place to enable the different agencies to network properly. It also refused to support openly the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Minister and colleagues introduced to improve and speed up the legal procedures, so that we could deal with claims, in particular false claims, more quickly. Rather than just talking about the problems, we need to ensure that there is proper support in place for the solutions that the Government are putting forward.
	My right hon. Friend is tightening up on the procedures to prevent abuse of the legal system, but there is also a need for the Law Society to deal with some of the problems created when certain lawyers handle such cases. It is noticeable that the case in Bucharest involved lawyers who were taking substantial sums of money for processing many claims that they must have known were false.
	I very much welcome the steps that have been taken so far. My right hon. Friend has done more than any other Minister who has held her position to tighten up the procedures, to take difficult decisions and to see them through. I hope that she will continue to do that in exactly the way she has done previously. The public must also realise that, if the problems of asylum and immigration are to be dealt with properly, it will take tough decisions and proper resourcing. Cuts of the type proposed by the Conservative party will not suffice, and impractical proposals such as parking people on offshore islands, are complete nonsense. It is only by clamping down on the procedures while dealing with the issues of properly managed migration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned that we can allay people's fears and make for a civilised society that has decent race relations and sound systems.

David Cameron: We have learned three important things in the debate so far, the first of which is that Ministers seem very reticent about wanting to get to the facts.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: I have only just started my speech, but I will be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. For clarification and my peace of mind, will he justify the shadow Home Secretary's use of the word "collusion"? I should like to learn four things from the debate, one of which is the justification for the use of that word by the shadow Home Secretary.

David Cameron: Much of my speech will be about the Minister's role, so I shall try to answer the hon. Lady's question during it.
	We have learned three important things. First, Ministers seem reluctant to get to the facts. The Home Secretary told us that Mr. Cameron—no relation, I stress—the official in our Bucharest embassy, met Home Office officials on 1 March. We need to know who was told about his concerns. Why were they not examined by the Sutton inquiry? We need to see the minutes of the meeting between Mr. Cameron and the Home Office official so that we can find out who knew what and when. If Ministers wanted to get to the facts, the Sutton inquiry would have covered that straight away.
	Secondly, Ministers seem reluctant to take responsibility. The Home Secretary said on the radio this morning that Ken Sutton will now widen his inquiry, go to Bucharest and examine the matter further, which is important. He also said, as he repeated in the House, that no Minister would resign—there will be no scalps. What will happen if Ken Sutton finds that Ministers were responsible in some way and that they knew something but did nothing about it? The Home Secretary has effectively prejudged his own inquiry.
	We learned a third important fact from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis): that our embassies in Sofia and Bucharest had written to the Home Office raising important concerns. The most important question that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration must answer is whether Ministers saw those letters. If they did but did not act, they are to blame for much of what has gone wrong. If they did not see the letters, does that not prove that we need a wider inquiry, worthy though the Sutton inquiry is? I am sure that Ken Sutton is a great man, but we need a proper independent inquiry.
	I wanted to speak in the debate because immigration and asylum are of long-standing interest to me. I am not some Johnny-come-lately to the subject, although Labour Members say that we are interested in the matter only because of the politics. I worked in the Home Office, I have served on Committees that have considered asylum and immigration Bills and I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I have asked the Minister questions about the Moxon affair in that Committee and the Chamber, but I have not been satisfied by the answers that I have received. I do not believe in pursuing Ministers for the sake of it. We did that with the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; he has gone and what benefit was that? We must try to get to the truth.
	I agree that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has what I once described in The Guardian as the "job from hell" in having to deal with all inquiries. I do not pretend that a Minister with thousands of civil servants can be held responsible for every last thing that they do. However, I have seen events unfold from relatively close at hand, so I know that the way in which the Government have handled the matter has not been impressive in any sense.
	Let us be absolutely clear about what has happened throughout the saga. First, the policy on entry clearance for one group of people was being operated by officials without ministerial knowledge. That is clearly evidence of a failing Department—we have heard further evidence from my Front-Bench colleagues about its failure today. The Minister herself said about the Sutton report:
	"This report makes clear that the current system of management and lines of accountability in parts of IND are not good enough"—
	as I said, we have a failing Department.
	Next, we find out that the whistleblower—Mr. Moxon—told the Minister's private office that the policy has been introduced, but he received no response for more than two months, which is evidence of a failing private office. As she told the Home Affairs Committee:
	"That was a failing in my office, there is absolutely no doubt about that".
	We know from the Minister's mouth that as well as a failing Department, we have a failing private office.
	The whistleblower then went to the press. The Sunday Times called the Minister's press office and the Home Office made several denials. Its final denial said:
	"There have been no changes in procedures or dip in the level of scrutiny applied by case workers."
	That was simply not true, because as the Minister admitted at the Dispatch Box on 8 March:
	"The response from the Home Office to the press reports on Friday . . . was wrong."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1247.]
	As well as a failing Department and private office, we have a failing press office that actively misleads the press. In the same statement on 8 March, the Minister said that the lapse in scrutiny was "rare and untypical"—those words are important.
	Next, the Prime Minister backed up the Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time by saying:
	"the issue is simple: a practice developed in"
	the Home Office
	"that should not have developed . . . I am trying to put the matter in context because it is not the case that it involves hundreds of thousands of people a year. It almost certainly involves only a very small number of people"—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1516.]
	He repeated the line that the problem was a rare and untypical one in the Home Office. However, we know that it was not rare and untypical and that the accelerated procedures were applied to other groups. As the leaked memo in The Sunday Times said:
	"all applications as far as possible over 3 months old should be granted . . . This exercise has been agreed by the Minister of State, Beverley Hughes."
	No one can doubt that the matter is serious.
	From what I have seen, a clear picture emerges of complacency among Ministers, of them not wanting to get to the facts and of them having the truth pulled out of them slowly, bit by bit. Let me give two examples of that.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: I have given way to the hon. Lady once; I am trying to answer her question at length.
	First, in the Minister's response to the urgent question on 8 March, did she tell the House that accelerated procedures were being applied to other groups of applicants for residency in this country? No, she did not. Did she answer questions about that matter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others? No, she did not. Did she deliberately give the impression that the situation was rare and untypical? Yes, she did. If the Minister had come to the House to apologise for what had happened, announce a proper inquiry and talk frankly about the problems of dealing with backlogs, the Home Office would not be in the mess that it is in now. The way in which she made her statement on 8 March was a genuine misjudgment.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman talks about misjudgment and backlogs. Was it a misjudgment in 1992 and 1993 when the backlogs were wiped out by the Conservative party?

David Cameron: If we were to have a proper debate, we could talk about a time when we had a Home Secretary who actually cut crime and had a decent asylum and immigration policy with fewer applications than at present, but that is not what we are discussing today.
	The scope of the inquiry that the Minister set up shows a second profound misjudgment. Part of her Department is failing, and her private office and press office have been shown to fail. There are huge question marks over the extent to which the accelerated procedures for migrants have been applied. We know that much more widespread concern exists, including that expressed by our embassies in Bucharest and Sofia. However, what was to be covered by Ken Sutton's inquiry? Would it cover her private office? No. Would it cover the press office that deliberately misled the press? No. Would it examine initially how far the accelerated procedures for granting immigration went? That was not the case to start with because there had to be a second announcement about the inquiry on 12 March. A third extension of the Sutton inquiry was announced on the radio this morning by the Home Secretary when he said that Ken Sutton is going out to Bucharest. The situation is utterly unconvincing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, we need a proper independent inquiry. The Minister has made a profound misjudgment.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: I will not give way again. We have seen a picture of complacency and unwillingness to get to the facts. The truth had to be dragged out of the Minister time after time. The hon. Member for Winchester was rather generous to the Minister—

James Clappison: And polite.

David Cameron: He was polite as well. The Minister has lost the confidence of many of her officials because she has blamed them for what went wrong. She has certainly lost the confidence of much of the press because her press office has completely misled it. She has lost the confidence of many MPs because she simply has not given us full answers.
	The question for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister is: if one has a Department and a private office that have failed, and if there is more and more evidence of chaos in the system and clear evidence that a wider inquiry is needed, is the Minister of State the right person to turn matters around? I find it hard to believe that the answer to that question is yes.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am sure that I am not the only person in the Chamber to remember the episode of "Yes Minister" in which Sir Humphrey remarked that almost all Government policy was bad, but frightfully well carried out. I do not think that that is the case in this instance. Today we must ask with whom responsibility lies when a policy is right, but not carried out properly.
	Let us not mistake the broad consensus—I think that there is probably some consensus on both sides of the House—that the basic policy is right. I hope that there is some agreement that this country needs hard-working migrants to boost our economy and enrich our society. When my parents came here in the 1960s, they were part of a generation of immigrants who helped to build up our public services. Likewise, prospective immigrants today, if they have qualifications, skills and a willingness to work, should be welcomed—and, yes, even fast-tracked.
	Today's dispute is about the implementation of such a policy and the ways in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration should be held responsible for errors in that implementation. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) advanced an argument the conclusions of which bear no relation to its premises. The Opposition cite the principle of ministerial responsibility, by which they mean the Minister taking responsibility for officials' actions that contradict the very policy set out by the Minister. Not only do the Opposition blame my right hon. Friend personally, but they claim that the only way in which she can exercise responsibility for it is by resigning. That is simply not the case.
	Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the actions of their officials. They can be and are held accountable through questioning and public debate, as has happened in the present case. Ministers might have to explain in the House what has been done by an official, and that, too, has happened in this case. That is the convention, that is what my right hon. Friend has done in the House, and that is what has been examined in some detail by Ken Sutton. None the less, the Opposition allege that responsibility must, at all times and in all places, equal a resignation. No offence is considered too far removed from a Minister's private office. The claiming of a ministerial scalp seems to be the most important—indeed, the only—thing that the Opposition are willing to accept.
	The Tories' rationale for demanding that my right hon. Friend leave office was unwittingly revealed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) last night on "Newsnight". He told Kirsty Wark:
	"It is difficult for this government to accuse us"—
	that is, the Tories—"of popularity." I would not dream of accusing them of such a thing. However, in the present case, they are guilty of ham-fisted and unprincipled opportunism.

David Cameron: If this is all about opportunism, why has the Home Secretary today announced that no further immigration applications will be accepted from Romania?

Parmjit Dhanda: I was coming to those points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is absolutely right to have a further investigation. He says that if there are issues to be investigated, let us investigate them, and he is right to do so.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Parmjit Dhanda: Let me make a little more progress, then I shall be happy to give way.
	In my view, when the shadow Home Secretary received the e-mail in question, he should have reported it to the Home Office straight away. Instead, he decided to wait three weeks. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tried to explain the inordinate delay by claiming:
	"We needed to check out the email before handing it over. We needed to check if the allegations were accurate."
	That has been repeated today in the Chamber. However, checking the accuracy of the allegations was the whole point of the inquiry, so the e-mail should have been forwarded three weeks ago.

James Paice: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misattributing remarks. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and I have made, time and again, is that we needed the time not to check the accuracy of the statement—we were in no position to do so—but to check the e-mail's provenance. All we knew was that we had an anonymous e-mail; we had to find out its provenance and determine whether its author had some justification for making the allegations set out within it. That is totally separate from authenticating its contents.

Parmjit Dhanda: I believe that if the hon. Gentleman found evidence of a burglary or a murder, he would not act as judge and jury himself, but would report that evidence to the authorities immediately. The Opposition chose not to do that in the present case, and although the hon. Gentleman has given his reasons for acting as he did, I disagree with them. The Opposition stood back and calculated the political gain that they believed they would score from delaying for some weeks. They put the e-mail in the public domain only yesterday, repeated its allegations today, then—feigning indignation—they called for the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman appears to be in conflict with the Home Secretary, who this morning accepted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was right to wait while the provenance of the e-mail was checked. Of course, we had no knowledge as to its authenticity until the Foreign Office interviewed Mr. Cameron and suspended him, and he then telephoned my right hon. Friend's office. That was the first time that we were certain that the author of the e-mail was anyone who knew what they were talking about.

Parmjit Dhanda: As I said, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could have sent the e-mail to Ken Sutton for investigation had they chosen to. They chose not to do that, and that is a matter of record.
	A resignation in these circumstances not only lacks a basis in constitutional principle—

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Parmjit Dhanda: No, I have given way enough.
	A resignation would also fail to serve any practical purpose. We are well aware of the developments in the Home Office and of how much my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has managed to achieve. Margot Asquith once memorably said of Lloyd George
	"He cannot see a belt without hitting below it."
	Neither can the Opposition—nor can they see a bandwagon without jumping on it, or a principle without abandoning it.
	I know that a great deal of work needs to be done in the Balkan states. On Saturday, in Split, I met representatives of south-east European countries. I believe that they would be the first to accept that much work is necessary before their countries can become accession states. However, I share the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that debates such as this one can have a detrimental effect on immigrant communities resident in this country. I hope that the debate and the way in which the Conservatives have decided to handle these issues will not have a negative impact.

Edward Garnier: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not under the misapprehension that the debate is about Beverley Hughes. This debate is about the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will use the correct parliamentary language.

Edward Garnier: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, there is no "with respect". The hon. and learned Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Edward Garnier: Let me rephrase my intervention. This debate is not about the individual woman who happens to be the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes). It is about the office holder who happens to be the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration at the Home Office. It deals with a precise and discrete constitutional question about where ministerial responsibility lies. It is not a personal attack on the individual Minister—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) accept that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions can only be so long.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) tries to make a point in his own way, but I do not think that he has taken the House with him.
	The shadow Home Secretary said that he feels that the Conservatives had their immigration and asylum strategy right. I say that a strategy that in April 1997 had people waiting up to 20 months for a decision was not the right and proper strategy. The current incumbent in the post of Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), has presided over a Home Office department that has ensured that the people in two thirds of cases now wait for less than six months. She is doing a terrific job and everyone in the House should get behind her.

Peter Lilley: The debate raises two issues. The first is the pattern of behaviour of Ministers, which began with denial, followed by grudging acceptance when finally they were faced with documentary evidence of what they had previously denied. That was then followed by denigration and suspension of the whistleblowers. They moved on to protestations of ignorance of what was happening in their Departments, and in the end they blamed officials. Above all, and most wrong of all, Ministers refused to accept responsibility for the actions and inactions of their Department. In my view, to blame officials is despicable, to claim ignorance is culpable and to deny responsibility is intolerable.
	It is not only the Minister of State. The Home Secretary behaved with apparent chivalry by clasping the right hon. Lady to his bosom but, in fact, he was using her as a human shield. He must ask himself who is ultimately responsible in the Home Office for policy and who will take responsibility. The position of the Home Secretary must itself be under question. I suspect that the Prime Minister will move the right hon. Gentleman from his present post before too long. Anyway, there must be an independent inquiry into what has happened under his stewardship of the Government's policies.
	Far more important than that is the policy that is being pursued by the Home Office. Most people imagine that its policy on immigration is to restrict immigration to what is necessary for family reunions, for meeting shortages that cannot be met until we have trained indigenous people to meet the requirements of particular jobs, and for bringing in people with company-specific knowledge necessary for the functioning of their companies, for example.
	We learn, however, that there has been a transposal of policy. The basic thrust of what is happening in the Home Office is to facilitate and encourage immigration to this country. I say that advisedly, and not only because of the devastating revelations about particular eastern European countries that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) set out. The Department has set a target to boost the number of people asking for work permits to come into this country: from a figure of about 47,000 in 1997, it has set a target of 200,000 in the current year.
	I asked the Minister, on the day after she made her statement, a series of questions. I asked what the targets were within the Department. Characteristically the right hon. Lady has not answered. Is that because she does not know the answers to the questions that I tabled for answer within five days or is she withholding them until after this debate, as has been done so many times before?

Lady Hermon: Forgive me for being boringly repetitive, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain and justify the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) using very serious language and suggesting that there was collusion? Where is there one item of evidence that there has been collusion?

Peter Lilley: I did not catch that particular word, but I take it that my right hon. Friend was referring to collusion with the accelerated procedures, which seem to have been responsible for the bulk of cases. It is claimed that only a small tweak was introduced. The Minister of State said that it was not introduced by senior managers, but Ken Sutton said that it was introduced by senior managers.
	It is not only that a target has been set to increase the number of work permits; people are being actively encouraged to apply for work permits. I have a letter that was sent out by the Home Office Work Permits (UK) to small businesses in this country, which reads:
	"Dear Sir or Madam: Are you struggling to find the quality of staff you need to run your business effectively? Do you want to employ an individual from outside Europe but are not sure how?"
	The unit says that it can get help from the Department in bringing in high, medium and low-skilled people to fill vacancies. It continues:
	"Work Permits (UK) is a department of the Home Office and is based in Sheffield. We have set up a Small Business Unit with the specific aim of raising awareness of the work permit arrangements amongst small and medium sized businesses . . . "

Stephen McCabe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: No. I am not going to give up more time.
	The Government are actively encouraging people to bring other people into this country. They have reduced the rate of refusals from more than one in eight under the Conservative Government to fewer than one in 20 of those who apply to come here. We have seen how they are colluding in the exploitation of loopholes. The particular loophole that was the origin of all this was the requirement under the accession treaties to allow people to come from the accession countries to the UK to establish businesses. That was not meant to allow people to come to this country as office cleaners and describe that as setting up a business.
	In his report, Mr. Sutton says:
	"A typical case would be a Romanian student coming to the end of their course in this country and planning to set up in business as a cleaner."
	Should we be allowing thousands of people—possibly tens of thousands—to do that? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) seems to think that that is amusing, but most people do not believe that that is the purpose of the immigration service.
	The reason why we have such backlogs that constantly have to be dealt with by accelerated procedures is that there is a growing number of applications—about 500,000 according to the Sutton report. The reason why there are so many applications is that the Government have made it easy and speedy to get into the country, unlike the position in most other countries. Consequently, more people apply and they overwhelm the system.
	It has become clear, too, that the default position in the Department is to let people in rather than to deny them entry: if they do not provide sufficient information, let them in. The document says, "If they don't supply a bank statement, let them in. If they don't have other information about their national insurance and so on, let them in." Surely if people cannot or do not provide the information that is requested of them, they should be refused entry. That should be the default position.
	My constituents, by and large, want a restrictive immigration policy, and that includes people of all ethnic groups there. I have had representations from ethnic minorities in my constituency to the effect that they would prefer a stricter and firmer immigration policy. The reason my constituents want that is certainly not because they hold racist views. They accept it when I say that the bulk of the people who want to come to this country, be they asylum seekers, economic migrants or even illegal immigrants, are basically decent people who want to better the lot of themselves and their families. But they know, as we surely all know, that this country is too crowded to be a country of net immigration.
	Apart from the Netherlands, England is the most densely populated country in western Europe, yet for the first time in our history we have one of the highest rates of net immigration and it is being deliberately encouraged by the Government. We see the consequences in our constituencies. The bulk of the people who come to this country come to London and the south-east. Accommodation has to be provided for them. The Government admitted in response to a question that I tabled that 85 per cent. of the growth in population that they expect over the next 30 years—5.6 million extra people—is the result of net immigration. That is one of the major reasons that there is pressure on housing accommodation and public services in the south-east.
	Unless and until the Government and the Ministers concerned are prepared to make the immigration service do what it ought to do—restrict immigration to those who need to come to this country, not encourage it on a large scale—there will not be the public confidence in the Home Office that there ought to be.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister and I have had many dealings together in Committee and across the Floor of the House. Throughout my dealings with her, I have found her courteous, kind, helpful and efficient and I make no challenge whatever to her personal integrity. But today she and the Home Office face two central charges. The first is that Ministers have presided over an increasingly chaotic and shambolic asylum and immigration system that, after more than seven years of the Government, is universally condemned throughout the country for its inefficiency. The first charge is massive incompetence.
	The second charge is more serous and it is this: in order to persuade the general public that all is well when plainly it is not, Home Office and Foreign Office officials are encouraged, if not ordered, by someone somewhere to manipulate the system, to operate it improperly and to behave improperly, in an attempt, first, to please their political masters and reach the targets they have been set, and secondly, to persuade the general public that everything is under control, when plainly it is not.

Kali Mountford: What does the hon. Gentleman say to the charge put to his party by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that exactly the same procedures were adopted for the new accession countries under the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported?

Humfrey Malins: No, not in the same way. I shall come to that in the course of my remarks.

Edward Garnier: May I add another reason to my hon. Friend's two? Is there not a fundamental constitutional issue? Under our eccentric constitutional arrangements, we have the Executive sitting in Parliament. Unless they are prepared to be accountable to Parliament, they are not performing their proper constitutional function. Irrespective of the personality involved—I was ticked off a moment ago for using a personal name—unless Ministers are prepared to accept responsibility for their role as Ministers, rather than passing the buck down the line to civil servants, the system breaks down. That may not be important to some, but to me, and I hope to my hon. Friend, it is.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. and learned Friend is right. It is nothing to do with personalities. It is to do with the office of Minister. Responsibility must be lodged somewhere. It is not right for Ministers continually to blame junior officials when, in truth, the buck stops with the Minister. My second allegation relates to the integrity of the system, which I believe is now at stake.
	I shall deal briefly with the first allegation—incompetence. In the Government's first year of office, the bilateral treaty that we had with France whereby people arriving unlawfully on our shores were returned to France lapsed and the Government were never able to renegotiate it. That was their first failure. Partly in consequence, the number of asylum seekers began to rise dramatically. By 2002, we had become the asylum capital of Europe, with well over 100,000 asylum applications in that year, the largest total ever.
	The Government could not cope properly. That important area of initial decision making was hopelessly neglected—and is still neglected, according to the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee. Life and death decisions are made by officials who receive a mere 27 days' training and a salary of only a little more than £15,000 a year. Proof that the quality of initial decisions under Labour is going down can be found in the statistics. In 2002, 22 per cent. of appeals against their decisions were successful, whereas in the last year of the Conservative Government, that figure was only 4 per cent. Members in all parts of the House—Members of the Minister's own party—have roundly condemned the Government for failing to put sufficient resources and expertise into initial decisions.

Tom Watson: As a former member of the Home Affairs Committee, I remember the dignity with which the hon. Gentleman took evidence. Does he recall taking evidence about the computer system and, more importantly, about the 1,200 redundancies of experienced caseworkers that that situation created, which contributed significantly to the backlog?

Humfrey Malins: We are sick and tired of Labour Members discussing so-called failures seven or eight years ago. The Labour Government have been in power for more than seven years, and they should take responsibility for their actions and for their failings.
	I note that delays are still endemic in the system. More than 10,000 cases a year still take more than eight weeks to get an initial decision. The average time to get from the initial decision to the adjudicator is now some 17 weeks, or more than four months.

Tom Harris: It is a bit better than it was in 1997.

Humfrey Malins: Again, a Labour Member mentions 1997. When will the Labour party begin to take responsibility for the past seven years, rather than continually looking back to the seven years before that?
	Given that the conduct of the appeal is usually in the hands of the Home Office, a 17-week delay is far too long. Much to its shame, the Home Office is increasingly unrepresented by lawyers or its own presenting officers at hearings before the adjudicator, which causes further delay.
	Life for the adjudicators has been made even more frustrating by the ability of appellants to include all their human rights claims in their appeal. As a result, thousands of applicants for asylum who fail under the convention are nevertheless permitted to stay and are granted exceptional leave to remain under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a stark statistic that, in the last year of the Conservative Government, about 3,000 people were granted exceptional leave to remain in this country, whereas under this Government more than 20,000 people have been allowed exceptional leave to remain in each of the past two years.
	What happens at the end of the day to the failed asylum seeker? In truth, the Government's removals policy has been an abject failure and is widely recognised as such up and down the country. They set themselves a target of 34,000 removals per year, but they have been unable to get anywhere near it and have had to abandon it. The system has been discredited, because four out of five failed asylum seekers know that they can remain in this country, notwithstanding the fact that they have no case whatsoever. One consequence of that discredited system is that the Home Secretary was obliged to grant, as he did last year, an amnesty to about 50,000 failed asylum seekers.
	The Government say that legislation is the answer, but I remind them that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 had virtually no effect on the system, and the flagship policy of placing asylum seekers in accommodation centres and induction centres has been a disaster. In the past two years, not one accommodation centre has been set up under this Government. They have talked a good case but failed to act.
	The Government have no clear or effective policy on managed migration. When the Home Secretary was asked to estimate how many people are here illegally, he replied that he
	"has not got a clue".
	On migration generally, he argues, quite wrongly, that there is no obvious upper limit on the number of migrants who could be present in this country.
	The charge of incompetence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the second allegation about the integrity of the system is even more serious, and we must deal with it today.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by paying tribute to the Minister's competence and personal integrity. Is it just a coincidence that whenever the Conservative party guns for the scalp of a Minister, it happens to be a woman, as was the case with the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who is now Minister for the Arts, and with the Minister for Children, and now with this Minister? Was the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) right when she said that her party was a "nasty party" that would take such action on such grounds?

Humfrey Malins: Frankly, that is such an absurd intervention that I will not dignify it with a response.
	The story of Mr. Steve Moxon, which broke a few weeks ago, should have put the Government on notice that there were serious problems ahead. He is an immigration caseworker who revealed that officials had been ordered to fast-track thousands of applicants with few or no checks on their authenticity. Since November 2002, civil servants have been told to fast-track applications under the BRACE—backlog reduction accelerated clearance exercise—procedure. Rather sinisterly, the memorandum said:
	"as this is not a published policy, no reference should be made to this, either to the applicant or his representatives or on the Home Office website."
	That shows that a lot is going on behind the scenes with this Government that we do not know about, and that we should know about. When challenged about it, the Home Office said that there had been no changes in procedures or dips in the level of the scrutiny applied by caseworkers. Pull the other one: the truth is that there have been changes and dips in scrutiny. Unwisely, the Minister told the House of Commons that the case was "rare and untypical". She would have been much wiser at that stage to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegation and set up some form of independent inquiry right across the Home Office. She went on to tell the Select Committee on Home Affairs that it was absurd to imply that she should be made responsible for this.
	The second major allegation relates to what took place on 28 March, with new leaked documents claiming that the Minister authorised the fast-tracking of applications. The memorandum from two senior officials at Croydon stated:
	"All applications—as far as possible—over three months old should be granted, unless the information available on file is such that it can properly and defensibly support a refusal. Where a case will result in a refusal, the case must be cleared by a senior case worker. No further inquiries should be made."
	Significantly, it adds:
	"This exercise has been agreed by the minister of state, Beverley Hughes."
	Thirdly, we heard from the diplomat in Romania about what he was instructed to do.

Neil Gerrard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: No, I have no time: I must move on. I have given way on many occasions.
	The third serious allegation comes from the British consul in Bucharest, who said:
	"The Home Office judgment and decision making with regard to ECAA applications is a continual problem for overseas posts such as Sofia and Bucharest."
	He goes on to say that there has been excessive pressure to grant applications that in effect have no merit whatsoever. The truth of the matter is that there are countless examples of cases that those people had to grant when they should never have done so. One example is that of Mr. C, who applied for a visa under the ECAA—European Community association agreement—scheme in August 2003. The visa assistant at the British embassy said:
	"We telephoned his company and they told us they've never heard of him and he's never worked for them."
	However, the Home Office lost the letter—surprise, surprise—which suggests that the claim was bogus, and Mr. C was granted a visa allowing him into Britain.
	One example of bad practice would be one thing, and a second example might be thought to be coincidence, but in the past three months we have had three clear examples of a practice adopted across the Home Office that brings the integrity of the whole system into question. It is time that the Government considered a full and independent inquiry, probably by a High Court judge, into exactly what has been going on.
	The Home Secretary acknowledges that the position is serious, but where does responsibility for it lie? Does he believe that it lies with junior officials? Does he think that it lies with middle-ranking officials? Or does he believe that it lies with senior officials? He would probably reply, yes, yes, yes. It may be slightly old-fashioned to say so, but Conservative Members believe that the responsibility lies with Ministers and that the buck stops there.

Beverley Hughes: First, I thank all my hon. Friends who have intervened and contributed to the debate for their support and speeches. I also thank the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), who were the only two people on the Opposition Benches to conduct any research or have well-informed views about the issues that we have discussed during the past few weeks.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
	I genuinely regret the way in which Conservative Members have approached the issue. They have shown that they do not care about the substance of the matter. It is simply another bandwagon to jump on for their purposes.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I want to make some progress first. I shall inform the right hon. Gentleman when I am ready to give way.
	I genuinely regret Conservative Members' approach because they know, as we do, that migration is important for this country. That has always been the case because we are an island nation. Immigration is important now and will increasingly be so as our population changes. Immigrants have helped us to create wealth, compete in world markets and build strong relationships with other countries. However, the Tories and their newspapers promote a barrage of scare stories, which demonise all immigrants—we heard an example of that today from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—as scroungers, criminals or worse, claim that everything is out of control, undermine the staff who have achieved genuine reforms and stoke up fear and insecurity instead of encouraging the rational and open debate that we need. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others who said that we need that debate to face up to some genuine issues and decisions.

Peter Lilley: The Minister must have misheard. I said that all immigrants are hard working, industrious people who want to improve their lot and that of their families. Will she therefore withdraw her remarks? Earlier, she castigated Opposition Members for not conducting research. I tabled questions on the day of her previous statement. They asked, among other things, what targets she had set for processing claims. She has not replied. Is that because she does not know the answer or is she withholding the information until after the debate?

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman might have said that migrants were hard working but he also said that he did not want any in the country, period.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, having once said something untrue about one, to go on to say something else untrue about one?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering very serious matters. I say to the Minister and the House that everybody involved in the debate should choose their words carefully.

Beverley Hughes: That is exactly right. The Conservatives do not like hearing about their record in Government, but it is important to recognise the absolute shambles in which they left the immigration department, with no proper systems or management and more than 1,000 caseworkers dismissed on the basis of a computer system that never arrived. I remind the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the Home Office was totally unprepared to respond to the Kosovan crisis—an enormous crisis that led to an influx of people here.
	It has taken a systematic and radical reform, step by step—it is not complete yet—to put that right.
	The Opposition have criticised us for not being able to say how many people are here. I remind them that the Conservative party in government removed embarkation controls, so we have no way of articulating that. The asylum system had in it, as we have heard, delay after delay, with cases going on for years and years. Secret decisions were taken quietly to grant asylum seekers leave to remain, of which we became aware only later when the figures were published, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) pointed out.

David Cameron: We have heard from the Home Secretary that our consul in Bucharest met with an official in her Department on 1 March to make his concerns clear. Were minutes taken of that meeting, were they passed to the Minister, and who saw them in the Home Office? If she did not see them, why did she not?

Beverley Hughes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said today that a senior immigration and nationality directorate official visited Bucharest for talks on strengthening measures on illegal immigration and other matters, including the ECAA route. A report of that meeting was given to Ministers, or a record—

David Cameron: This is vital to the issue that we are debating. If a report was given to Ministers about concerns in relation to immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria, why was that information not included in the Sutton inquiry when it was set up? Why do Ministers have to have the truth dragged from them bit by bit? Why do they not want to get to the truth?

Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman recalls, the shadow Home Secretary did not reveal the memo that would have been germane to the Sutton inquiry. I also remind Opposition Members that the subject of the allegations leading up to my statement on 8 March was specifically the eight accession countries and the allegation that Ministers had fast-tracked nationals from those countries in order to beat the deadline of 1 May. The focus was on the accession countries at that time.
	As for the record of the Conservative party—

James Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I want to make some progress.
	I remind Conservative Members of the record of their party in government: no action on border controls, no review of immigration control, no action on people trafficking, and no action at all on the organised immigration crime that fuels much illegal entry. Since moving into opposition, its record has been characterised by hypocrisy. First, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on becoming leader, paraded his migrant history. When he was Home Secretary, he and his party argued strongly in favour of EU enlargement, but he has since reversed his position on that. Secondly, he created a storm about our proposals to remove support for failed asylum-seeking families, when he had clearly forgotten that he took away support from all asylum seekers the moment that they claimed, which was overturned by the courts.

Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend is talking about the record pre-1997. She may recall that in 1997, I and some other Labour Members used the word "amnesty", and I think that we were told by the then Home Secretary to wash our mouths out with soap and water. The Government then rightly embarked on a backlog clearance exercise, which was made public and which everyone knew about. Can she remind us how many backlog clearance exercises took place in the 1990s, which only came to light when the figures were published two or three years later?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Home Secretary yesterday put in the Library details of all those exercises that have taken place from 1988 onwards. Apart from the secret one, which was not disclosed at all—in marked contrast to the exercise that we announced in October—the other exercises were by and large what any sensible Government or Department would have to do. Backlogs are completely anathema to immigration control. If we have large backlogs, we are not managing the system properly. With proportionate and sensible measures, it makes sense to reduce backlogs as much as we can.

Edward Garnier: Could the right hon. Lady give us a brief definition of her understanding of the concept of ministerial responsibility of the House?

Beverley Hughes: It is to do what I am doing—implementing the Government's policy and being responsible for dramatic and radical change in the asylum and immigration system. That is what I intend to go on doing.
	Tory hypocrisy is reflected not just in the record of the Tories' new leader, but in their failure to support us in most of the tough measures we have included in legislation—and, I might say, in this kind of thing. I have here a sheaf of letters, including letters from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Members for Woking, for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). All the letters ask me to reverse decisions about constituents when the Department has decided that they should leave the country but those Conservative Members want them to stay. Conservative Members want me to use my discretion to overturn decisions that people should be removed from the country. I cannot see a Member on the Conservative Benches who has not written to me— [Interruption.] I must finish my speech. Our record, in contrast—[Interruption.]

Keith Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is preening herself. Having raised this matter, why does she not read out the names of the constituents involved and really make a hash of it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not, strictly speaking, a point of order for the Chair. It is more a matter for debate. Let me say to the House that this is a serious matter. Members should listen to what the Minister is saying. They should also remember that people outside the Chamber are noting the way in which we behave inside it.

Beverley Hughes: In contrast, our record in government shows that we have instituted systematic, step-by-step reforms of asylum procedures. We have reduced the number of claims, there has been a record number of removals, we have speeded up decision making, we have acted on border controls and tackled organised immigration crime, and we have introduced a new charging regime. I repeat that I do not suggest that all the reforms we want are necessary. I am not saying that all parts of the organisation are yet as strong as I want them to be. We have seen over recent weeks that that is not the case. However, we are moving in the right direction, and we have made much more significant progress than the Tory party ever did.

Norman Baker: Rather than engaging in knockabout, will the Minister focus on the future? The Home Secretary has suggested an investigation. Will the Minister commit herself to making it a full, public, independent investigation of the allegations that have been made?

Beverley Hughes: We shall have the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said: these are serious allegations which require a thorough investigation, and I want that to happen.
	Hon. Members have asked me a number of questions. I shall probably not be able to deal with all of them, and I hope that they will allow me to write to them about some of them. In answer to the question about whether there was any reason to suspect that the inquiry would not be legal, I can say that there is no reason to believe that the action we have taken today would be open to legal challenge. We have explored the position, and I think that our action would be generally accepted as a sensible measure. Not only will we suspend applications under the ECAA, for a short period we will suspend all applications for any purpose from Bulgaria and Romania to ensure that we have a complete view of what is happening there.
	The Home Secretary has dealt with the specific allegations against me in some detail. Let me simply say that I would not be interested in hanging on to office if I knew in my own mind that I had a personal case to answer, because it is what is in my head and on my conscience that matters to me. I would never compromise my integrity or my honesty, and I am not resigning because my conscience is clear. I believe that, working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have made systematic and significant progress in implementing our policy and delivering real change and improvements. I am neither incompetent nor dishonest and I intend to carry on doing my job as long as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary want me to do so.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 378.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House congratulates the Government on having embarked on radical end-to-end reform of the immigration and asylum system including strengthening border controls, reducing asylum intake by more than half, increasing immigration removals to record levels and speeding up the processing of applications for leave to remain in the UK; notes that, as indicated in a statement published by the Government on 29th March, all Governments have instituted reasonable and proportionate measures to deal with backlogs of applications by people already in this country for permission to extend their stay; and applauds the fact that the Government, by investing more staff resources than ever before, has reached the point where the Backlog Reduction Accelerated Clearance Exercise (BRACE) is no longer necessary.

EU Constitution Referendum

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the next debate on the Opposition motions. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the draft European Constitution constitutes a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and the Member States and should only be ratified if the British people have freely consented to it in a referendum.
	I wish to apologise at this stage because, for personal reasons that I have explained to Ministers and to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I will have to leave during the course of the debate and I will not be present for the wind-ups. However, I make no apology for once again initiating a debate on the draft constitution and the need for a referendum. This is a vital issue—

Alan Howarth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my theme a little, I will give way to him in due course.
	The Leader of the House may in the past have belittled the constitution as a tidying up measure. It has always been considerably more than that. That is why the failure to agree it in Brussels in December was greeted with such anger and frustration by Europe's arch-integrationists. Now it is back. I am not surprised: I know how much it means to those in Europe who seek a single European state and who were never going to let it rest. I watched with some amusement the attempts of the Government to pretend that it was off the agenda and was likely to be so for some time. That was always a typical new Labour smokescreen, behind which this coyly integrationist Government could seek to ensure that this integrationist constitution would come back with a vengeance, and with as little time to oppose it as possible.
	Last Friday ended what must be the most bizarre set of gyrations and about-turns performed by a Government on a major issue for a very long time. It is worth recalling the sequence of events. In 1999, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), told the House:
	"For the record, we are not proposing a constitution of Europe."—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]
	The Prime Minister, in Warsaw in October 2000, told us that a constitution was "unnecessary". In Cardiff, in November 2002, the Prime Minister told us that
	"we do need a proper Constitution for Europe."
	Yesterday, according to the Prime Minister, it was apparently anti-European to be against a constitution. Even chameleons do not change their colours that quickly. But this is the party and the Prime Minister who, in 1983, stood on the platform of withdrawal from Europe. Whatever the reasons for the U-turns, high principle certainly is not one of them.
	Let us consider the past four months. The constitution that the Prime Minister told us last summer was "essential" for enlargement of the EU was suddenly no longer essential in December. We were told that we could get by with the Nice treaty. A "senior Government source", later unmasked as the Foreign Secretary, remarked last November that a constitution would be "highly desirable" but not "absolutely necessary".
	Furthermore, if we are to believe the article on page 21 of the Financial Times today, after the failure to achieve agreement on the constitution in Brussels last December, the Foreign Secretary sent a memo to the Prime Minister advising him to do nothing to revive it. That is until last Friday, when suddenly the newly revived constitution was apparently once more essential for enlargement to work. A lawyer or accountant giving such confused advice would quickly be sued for professional negligence.

Alan Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for rigour in these matters, so, given that the draft constitution is only a recommendation to the intergovernmental conference and that that conference has not yet made its recommendations to the legislatures of the member states, how can he know at this stage that the issues for decision would be worth a referendum? Is he not simply whipping up anti-European sentiment to exploit it for party political purposes?

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has been in politics for a very long time and he can read the runes as well as I can. Does he really believe that the Irish presidency would have announced that it would return to the constitution without being pretty well assured that everything was signed, sealed and delivered? I think that there will be very few changes, but it will be interesting to see what happens on 18 June—when in this country we shall of course be celebrating the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.

Frank Field: Is not the worry that the constitution is not already signed and sealed, and that the Irish Prime Minister is telling the truth when he says that it is still to be agreed and that further compromises are necessary? It is in those circumstances that it is so important to put the constitution to the people of this country. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if that were the Government's position we would not need this debate?

Michael Ancram: That would certainly be the case but, unfortunately, that is not where we are. In politics, I am a great believer in starting from where we find ourselves, but I agree that the position outlined by the right hon. Gentleman would have been preferable.
	Some changes have to be made in the positions that were held in December. For instance, we know that the Spanish and the Polish Governments will have to move from their former position on weighted voting, but all the indications are that both have decided to do so. I may be anticipating the final outcome, but I suspect that I shall be right in my judgment that the constitution will be much as it is now.
	The only explanation for the twisting and turning of the past months is that the Prime Minister, in his much-vaunted determination never to be isolated in Europe, is fulfilling that ambition by simply going with the flow—always accepting the position in which the constitution happens to be at a particular time. I have tried hard to understand the Government's position. I have listened closely to the Prime Minister. I quote again from the speech he made in Cardiff on 28 November 2002, when he talked of a
	"one-off opportunity for reform: to set Europe on a clear course for the future, a Europe that . . . can be a superpower".
	In January 2002, according to the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister told his colleagues that the constitution
	"will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe . . . and it would last for generations".
	In June last year, the Prime Minister suddenly told Parliament that the constitution
	"does not involve a fundamental change to the British constitution."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 352.]
	From that series of remarks, one can pick whichever position one wants. They do not give us much confidence that the Prime Minister has a clear view of what the constitution stands for.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
	I have also been listening to the Leader of the House; after all, he was the Minister for Europe for a considerable period. On 21 March 2002, he told the Convention on the Future of Europe that he was looking for
	"nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe".
	That is very different language from that of the Prime Minister in the remarks I just quoted. Of course, the Leader of the House is the same man who, on 26 May last year, described the constitution as a "tidying-up exercise". Once again, on the Government's position, "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Either the Government, jointly and severally, have no idea what the constitution is about, or they are deliberately trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people and of Parliament.
	What we can be clear about is that there is no such ambivalence or confusion across the channel. Our partners in Europe know what the constitution is about. The accession countries have their doubts, as I have discovered on recent visits, but they will be reluctant to push those doubts too far until they are full members. Traditional integrationist Europe—the Europe of Chancellor Schröder and Giscard d'Estaing—has no such doubts. The constitution is federalist, integrationist and, in their minds, urgent. The Belgian Prime Minister referred to it as the "capstone" of a "federal state". On 14 June last year, Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, described it as "worthy of the word historic" and as
	"the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
	Last May, the Danish Prime Minister said:
	"What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum."
	Former Italian Prime Minister, Lamberto Dini, said:
	"The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives".
	So why is it that our Government are so alone in arguing that the constitution is not significant? It can only be because their agenda is to try to get us into an integrationist Europe, effectively without anyone noticing. That is why, when they are challenged, as the Prime Minister was by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, they retreat into spurious and polarising arguments about the choice being not between the constitution and other solutions to the problems of Europe, but between being in Europe or getting out. That is a fraudulent argument, designed to divert attention from the Europe that they really want.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but does he not agree that, even though enlargement could go ahead on the basis of the Nice treaty, the EU will have 25 member states and a multiplicity of texts will make up the treaties, so it is simpler to shrink those texts into a constitution and add a little bit as well, which is effectively what the constitution will do?

Michael Ancram: None of us argues that Nice alone is the perfect way to manage a Europe of 25 states, but I am absolutely certain that a full-blown constitution is not needed to do that. That is the point that we are making, and I shall come to it in a moment.

Tam Dalyell: Before we leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view of history, will he forgive me for finding it a little difficult to take? Does he recollect that he was the Conservative candidate against me in West Lothian in February 1974? I have the clear recollection—I do not think that I am wrong—that he was not a whit behind Edward Heath in being ardent for Europe.

Michael Ancram: I hate to quibble with the hon. Gentleman's memory, but rather than February 1974, when I was fighting in East Lothian, I fought him in June 1970, when the situation was somewhat different. Indeed, I was one of a number of failed candidates who, having lost the election, wrote a letter to a national newspaper calling for a free vote on the accession Bill in 1972. That perhaps underlines the position that I took then and what my view is.
	Unlike the Government, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out his alternative European vision in a speech that he gave in Berlin on 13 February. He spoke of a flexible Europe—a live and let live Europe that is more co-operative and less prescriptive, more varied and less conformist, based on a completed single market, working together in areas where joint action is beneficial, but able, without tension, to differ where necessary. He spoke of a Europe where the sovereignty of the nation state is the foundation. That is not the Europe of the constitution. Ours is an alternative vision of Europe that we believe is more attuned to the challenges of an increasingly globalised 21st century.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real choice for an enlarged Europe is whether to have a new constitutional treaty or to continue with the existing constitutional treaties? As it appears unlikely that, by the next election, all 25 member states will have ratified whatever treaty is eventually agreed, will he confirm that the pressure for negotiation only extends to any new treaty and that any Conservative Government would not try to reopen the existing treaties on which we function at the moment—all of which have been negotiated by Conservative Governments of which he and I were members or supporters?

Michael Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] Labour Members obviously have difficulty hearing.
	My right hon. and learned Friend asks an important question. We have always said—and we say again—that had we been in government now, we would have used the period of the negotiation and renegotiation, which has been part of what the convention has been doing for the past two years, to make changes to the existing treaties. For example, we have made it clear for some time that we are not happy with the common fisheries policy; we believe that it is destroying the fishing industry in this country. Had we been the Government, we would have made that part of what we were negotiating in the course of the run-up to where we are now. If there is not a ratified and implemented treaty by the time we get back to government, Europe as a whole will have to look to see what it is going to do in future.
	One veto prevents the treaty from happening at all. If that happens, we will, of course, have renegotiation just as this Government have renegotiated every time—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I have given the answer.

Kenneth Clarke: Let us leave aside the fisheries policy on which our party has had the same policy ever since it went into opposition. If we say that the other member states were not persuaded that we should leave the common fisheries policy and one or two of them vetoed that, what would we then do? Presumably we would continue with the existing treaties.
	My right hon. and learned Friend mentions the common fisheries policy and I am familiar with our position on that. I trust that the fish understand it as well as the fishermen. However, what other things would we negotiate in the existing treaties? Do we intend to open up anything from the treaty of accession, the treaty of Maastricht or the treaty of Nice? What are the other things that we would be seeking to negotiate?

Michael Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend is, I have to say, asking speculative questions. The point is that—and it is a very clear point—if, by the time we get back to government after the next election, this treaty has not been ratified by every country in Europe and if we refuse to ratify it, as we would, there will be no treaty. We will then have to look at the current position and the existing treaties and will have to decide what can be kept and what cannot be kept in view of the enlargement of Europe. A whole area of renegotiation will be required. What we have been looking for all along is a simplification of the process in Europe and a simplification of the competences in Europe so that, at the end of the day, it is easier for the people of Europe to understand. I know where my right hon. and learned Friend is coming from, but he is not helping his cause by trying to open questions about the veto.

John Redwood: My right hon. and hon. Friends should remember that the Conservative party opposed the Nice treaty and the treaty of Amsterdam, which were negotiated badly by the Labour Government. We object very strongly to this constitution and those treaties for transferring many powers too far from our democratic rights in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend has my full support and that of most Conservative Members in making these points.

Michael Ancram: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear. I also remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that, at Laeken, the remit given to the convention was to try to simplify the process by which an enlarged Europe would be run and also to reconnect the European institutions with the people of Europe, who are being increasingly alienated from them. That, in itself, was looking for a renegotiation of the way that Europe is run. If we have not got a treaty as I hope that we have not when we return to power after the next election, that is precisely what we shall be returning to.

John Bercow: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Michael Ancram: I shall give way one more time to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am intervening frequently and he is being extremely generous.
	If we find we have the existing treaty, if we press points of renegotiation, and, presumably, if any one of the other 24 members does not agree with the points that we are making, it will veto them and we will be left with the existing treaty. What would we do if our negotiating points were blocked and we were not able to get unanimous agreement to reopen the treaty of accession, the treaty of Maastricht, the treaty of Amsterdam or the treaty of Nice that comprise the present constitution of the Union? What would we do if any one of the 24 blocked any particular change that we were seeking?

Michael Ancram: I do not know how my right hon. and learned Friend conducts negotiations, but I always go into them intending to try to achieve what I seek to achieve. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she was told frequently that she was never going to achieve the rebate by negotiation. She went in determined to achieve it and negotiated brilliantly, as my right hon. and learned Friend remembers, and she achieved what she sought. That is the spirit in which we would enter renegotiations if such a situation arose.

John Bercow: rose—

Michael Ancram: May I make a little progress?
	Last Friday, the Prime Minister called for a real debate to dispel what he called the myths. If his call were genuine, he would abandon the myth that we are seeking withdrawal. He knows that that is not true, and when he returned to the point yesterday, he diminished the value of the debate that he wants. He should also abandon the myths that he is not an integrationist and that the constitution is not the gateway to a single European state.
	Let us consider briefly the constitution. It is no mere charter of competencies of the sort with which we would have been happy, as I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. It does not just define lines and levels of authority, but sets out an agenda: the creation of a political entity that would soon become a single European state. It is a constitution, and states have constitutions. We oppose a single European state, so we oppose a constitution.

Jack Straw: Golf clubs have them.

Michael Ancram: If the Foreign Secretary thinks that we are talking about a golf club with regard to the constitution, he should study it more carefully.
	The constitution would create a single legal personality for Europe for the first time. A single legal personality is the hallmark of a state. For the first time, it will constitutionally assert the authority of European law over all national laws and constitutions. Totally contrary to the Government's pledged position, the constitution will incorporate the charter of fundamental rights, give that legal status and make it legally binding. Through the constitution, contrary to pledges made in Britain, the Government have agreed to a separate European military planning capability that will undermine NATO. It creates a five-year presidency and a Foreign Minister with his own diplomatic service—it is called an external action service to lessen the impact of that—that will increasingly move powers on asylum and immigration policy to the European Union. The constitution will abolish more than 30 national vetoes, and anyone who says that it is not a centralising and integrationist measure has not studied its details.

Lady Hermon: Just to spare me from endless sleepless nights, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear up one little query that I have had for a considerable time after listening to Conservative Members debating the constitution? I am sure that he knows that the principle of the supremacy of Community law was established in—I think—1962.

William Cash: 1964.

Lady Hermon: It was 1964—I thank the hon. Gentleman, who always keeps me right. The principle was established in the landmark decision on Costa v. ENEL in 1964. The principle of the supremacy of Community law was well known to the Tory Government who took this country into Europe. This country's courts have applied and given supremacy to Community law for 30 years, so what is the big issue about it appearing in the constitution?

Michael Ancram: The simple answer to the hon. Lady's important question is that up until now, the primacy or supremacy of European law over national laws has flowed from treaties that were agreed by nations and could be changed by nations. We are talking about the creation of a constitution from which such authority will flow down. That is a different animal from the previous situation. We emphasise the point because we are talking about a changed animal—it moves from being a Europe of nations to something much closer to being a nation of Europe.

William Cash: In endorsing what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, does he accept that only a few days ago, the House of Lords European Union Committee issued a report that made it quite clear that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are wrong to state repeatedly that there will be no fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and its member states? In fact, the House of Lords Committee says that there is a new arrangement for competencies. It was completely wrong of the Foreign Secretary to continue to assert that outrageous statement in Foreign Office questions today.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has spent much time studying the technicalities, and I bow to his knowledge of them.

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall give way in a moment.
	We are considering whether the constitution is a fundamental change in the relationships between the EU and its member states. That was the test for a referendum set by the Prime Minister. My argument is that when all the various points that I have outlined are added together, it is clear that the relationship and the direction of power are changing. That is why we are pressing so hard for a referendum.

Denis MacShane: It is important to have on the record that paragraph 25 of the House of Lords report states:
	"The new wording of the primary obligation of the Court would be unlikely to bring about any change in the Court's role and approach in ensuring compliance with and the consistent application of Union law."
	In other words, it underlines the very point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

Michael Ancram: Once again, as he so often does, the Minister for Europe has completely missed the point.
	The constitution not only makes the changes that I have described, but sets out wider aspirations for the future. It does so in terms that leave little room for misunderstanding. On the economy, article I-14 states:
	"The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the economic policies of the Member States, in particular by adopting broad guidelines for these policies. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union."
	Let me ask the Foreign Secretary how that general aspiration will work in the long term without tax harmonisation, and is that article as it stands in the constitution acceptable to the Government?

Jack Straw: indicated dissent.

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Having told me that there is to be no change, he will apparently be seeking change. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

Jack Straw: The wording of articles I-11 and I-14 is unacceptable. We have proposed amendments to change the wording so that it becomes consistent with the articles in part III—69 or 70, or thereabouts—and makes it clear that it is the role of member states, not of the Union, to co-ordinate their economic policies. We made that position clear as long ago as September last year in the White Paper.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for clearing up the question whether that remains the Government's position. May I ask him another question? Article I-15, on foreign and security policy, states:
	"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area."
	What does that mean in the long term if not a single foreign and security policy, subject—as it would be, if the constitution goes through as it is now—to the European Court of Justice? Is that acceptable to the Government?

Jack Straw: First, the current draft makes it absolutely clear that it will not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what the words mean, he should ask himself. They are identical to those found in the Maastricht treaty, for which he voted.

Michael Ancram: I am asking the Government, who are, as I understand it, negotiating the treaty, what their view of its meaning is. Apparently, Ministers have no view other than the one held by Opposition Front Benchers. The House has a right to know what the Government envisage will be the outturn of such articles, if they sign up to them.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I hope that he picks up the mistake that the Foreign Secretary just made. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction over article I-15. In fact, the relevant article, III-282, makes it clear that the Court has no jurisdiction only in respect of articles I-39 and I-40. Therefore, article I-15—the solidarity clause that imposes an obligation on member states—will be justiciable in the European Court of Justice. That clearly contradicts what we have just been told by the Foreign Secretary, who ought by now to have read the draft treaty that he is about to negotiate.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The answers that I am trying to secure are coming from my right hon. and hon. Friends, not from the Government. That goes back to what I was saying earlier. The Government do not understand what this constitution is about and what they are trying to get the UK to sign up for. This is a one-way ticket on a line to a single destination. It can be called a step change or a gateway, but it cannot be called insignificant. It shifts sovereignty away from the nation states towards the centre, and in doing so it changes the relationships. I happen to believe that that is dangerous and wrong.
	We are constantly being told by those on the Government Front Bench that we are alone in our views. However, what about the peoples of Europe? How many of them are straining at the leash for this constitution? How many of them raised their voices in resentment or concern when agreement on the constitution was not reached in December? How many demonstrations have there ever been? We must remember that the whole idea of the constitutional convention was to try to bring Europe closer to the people. It is time that Governments began to listen more closely to what their people are telling them.

Tony Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: No. I shall make some progress.
	Indeed, that was what Laeken was supposed to be about. The task was to reconnect institutions to people, to give them a sense of ownership again. Under Valery Giscard d'Estaing, it did precisely the opposite. Within the constitution it centralised powers, it altered fundamentally the relationship between the EU and its member states, and it moved from a Europe of nations towards something that is profoundly different. That is not what the peoples of Europe want, as we saw from the recent survey, nor what we want.
	It is apparently what the Government want. If not, why the rush to seek to ratify any June agreement as soon as possible, which I think were the words of the Prime Minister? They have no mandate for this constitution. It was not in the Labour party's manifesto. We will use every parliamentary device to thwart attempts to railroad this wretched constitution through Parliament.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Menzies Campbell: rose—

Michael Ancram: Does the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) wish to intervene? I promised that I would let him do so.

Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved on rather from the point. I am finding great difficulty following his position with regard to the relationship between the domestic laws of the United Kingdom and what was Community and is now Union law. If Community and now Union law has supremacy over the domestic laws of the UK so far as is relevant, how can there be any material difference if that matter is now stated ex facie over the proposed treaty, as compared with the circumstances that have obtained since 1972?

Michael Ancram: I know exactly where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming from. He has been very consistent on his views on Europe. The misunderstanding between us is that we are opposed to a constitution because a constitution changes the nature of Europe. The primacy of law that flows from a constitution rather than from treaties, which are signed by individual member states, is a different thing. That is why we are taking the view that we are.

Richard Younger-Ross: A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Conservative party wants to use every parliamentary opportunity to hold this process under scrutiny. Is this a change in policy, bearing in mind the number of times that the Committee considering the draft constitution fell and would be inquorate because Conservative Members did not bother to turn up?

Michael Ancram: I will say again that if there is an attempt, in our view, to railroad the ratification of this constitution through Parliament—some of the words that have been spoken over the past five days suggest that that is the Government's intention—I give warning that we will use every parliamentary device that we can to thwart that.
	There is a simple, fair and democratic answer. That is a referendum that allows the British people to decide. This constitution irrevocably draws sovereignty away from the nation state towards the centre. I passionately believe that no Government and no parliament have the right permanently to alienate the sovereignty of the people without their express consent. That is why I believe that in the current situation a referendum is essential, and that to refuse one is to strike another nail into the coffin of democratic credibility.

Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ancram: I really must make progress.
	I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to hold a referendum unless they are frightened of the result and are frightened of the electorate. They can have no objection in principle. They hold referendums on almost everything else. Can they not understand the resentment that their refusal to hold a referendum invokes? The British people are not to be trusted with such an important decision, we understand. The Danes are, the Irish are, the Dutch are and the Portuguese are. There will be many other countries that will have the courage and honesty to hold a referendum. Apparently the British will not be trusted. That is a patronising insult.
	If ever there has been an issue where the people have the right to say yes or no, it must be this. The decisions that we are about to take are historic. They will help to shape the future and surely people in such an instance have the right to have a say.
	The coming European elections, despite the wild assertions of the Leader of the House last August, are no surrogate for a referendum, but I hope that the voters will use them to give the Government the clearest possible message that they want a referendum and that they will not be ignored. The Government should, for once, show some moral fibre, trust the people and let the people decide.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the intensified scrutiny of both Houses in respect of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes that the Government's policy of active engagement within the EU is in Britain's national interests; supports its constructive approach to discussions within the Intergovernmental Conference to ensure that an enlarged Union works effectively; endorses paragraph 66 of the White Paper (Cm 5934) in respect of issues which must remain the province of the nation state; notes that provided there is a satisfactory outcome on these and other matters of concern, the proposals currently being discussed would not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union and therefore does not believe there is reason to depart from previous practice for constitutional treaties; and reaffirms the primacy of Parliament to decide on whether any future Constitutional Treaty should become part of UK law."
	I begin by warmly thanking the shadow Foreign Secretary for laying on the debate, which has exposed so acutely the fundamental divisions inside the Conservative party on the European Union and the incoherence of the case that he makes.
	The Government's overall position on the new draft constitutional treaty was clearly set out in the White Paper, which I put before Parliament on 9 September last year and which stands as Government policy. In making the case for the proposed amendment to the motion before the House, I want to answer four key questions. They are: why is a new treaty needed? What did the Convention recommend? What changes are the Government seeking to make to any treaty to make it acceptable to the UK? What is our approach to a referendum in those circumstances?
	I shall deal first with the case for a new treaty. As the Union has grown in size, so its functions have developed—most significantly through the Single European Act, from a customs union to a single market, and through the Maastricht treaty, to take in common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, and the single currency. As a result, the texts setting out what the Union is for and how it works are both dated and complicated. Its decision-making machinery is inadequate to cope effectively with 25 and more members, developed as it was for six member states. The treaties that embody the EU's constitution do not explain clearly where the division of powers rests between the nations and the Union.
	The result of the Convention's labours is to be found in the draft constitution, which I put before the House in August. It revises some of the text, and proposes other changes that are essentially aimed at improving decision making in the Union and in respect of some of its powers. Article I-1 of the draft makes it clear that the EU draws those powers from the member states, rather than the other way round. Article I-9 says clearly that
	"competences not conferred upon the Union. . .remain with the Member States".
	That is the first time that such a clear statement has been made.
	Article I-59 provides explicitly—also for the first time—for member states to withdraw from the European Union, if they so decide. It is not the case, as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asserted a few moments ago, that if the draft constitutional treaty becomes our law and that of the EU, it will be any different a constitutional animal in terms of international or domestic law from the treaties that have gone before. It is exactly the same in every particular.

William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: I shall make some progress; then I shall give way, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman.
	The draft treaty must be agreed in the same way by a process of political agreement, signature by member states, and then ratification by countries' domestic constitutional procedures. It must be changed in exactly the same way, with this difference: if a member state wishes to leave the EU—as some Opposition Members wish to do—a procedure allows them to avoid having to go through the rather complicated and uncertain procedure of renunciation of the whole treaty.
	We set out in the White Paper our objectives for the intergovernmental conference. Far from trying to hide our position under some bushel, we have been explicit in debate after debate in the Chamber and in the Committees that we have established, in order that Parliament be fully involved in the process, as it should be.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: In a moment.
	We stated at paragraph 66 of the White Paper that we would not sign any treaty that removed the veto for treaty change or for
	"areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources".
	In the 10 weeks of the intergovernmental conference process between October and December last year, we sought, and obtained, many important changes to the draft text—I moved the amendments and got them accepted. We have made it absolutely clear that the so-called European Foreign Minister remains responsible to member states through the Council of Ministers, and is not responsible to the Commission. We reached an agreement on defence co-operation, which will give the EU the capacity to intervene militarily—which I thought would be welcomed on both sides of the House—but only in a way that complements NATO, which remains the cornerstone of our territorial defence.
	Among the other changes that we have made, we have altered the so-called escalator clause, which was of genuine concern, by ensuring that further treaty changes can happen only if all national Parliaments, as well as member state Governments, explicitly agree to them. The escalator clause was unacceptable.
	The issue should be of particular interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes. Last October, he was interviewed on "Today", and he spelled out in his usual modest and understated way how the Government were about to sell out 1,000 years of history. It was put to him that the Government were successfully winning the arguments in the intergovernmental conference on the key areas, to which he said:
	"Well, let's test that. Are they"—
	the Government—
	"going to get rid of the so-called escalator clause . . . which means that in the future the vetoes can be changed by decision of the Council of Ministers without reference back to Treaties or to national Parliaments . . . If that escalator clause stays in they're whistling in the wind and they know it."
	Well, we have passed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's test because we got the escalator clause changed. The draft agreement proposed at Naples satisfactorily changed that part of the treaty, in a manner that I proposed. We will not sign up to any final treaty unless that change, and a number of others, are in it.

William Cash: On the question of which court should have the final say on whether a matter is within the competence of the Union, the Foreign Secretary will know that the House of Lords European Union Committee report—I am sure that he has read it—states explicitly:
	"What is new is the classification and division of competences set out in . . . the draft Treaty. The critical question is which court . . . will finally decide whether a matter falls within Union competence. This is not just a drafting question . . . but an issue touching upon the fundamental nature of the Union and its relationship with the Member States."
	In line with the Foreign Secretary's assertion that this Parliament is supreme—at last he agrees with me—is not the only answer to introduce a Bill to put the matter beyond all doubt, so that, if Parliament decides that they should do so, our judges will bring into effect any provision that is expressly, clearly and unambiguously inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972?

Jack Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman every time he makes that proposition. We could have a Bill to that effect tomorrow, and no one could prevent us from passing it if it were the will of this House and of the House of Lords. However, all our actions have consequences, and although he could have such a Bill, he could not be a member of the European Union as it is constituted, and he could not be a member of the European Union as it would be constituted under any future constitutional treaty.
	I have addressed the issue of primacy with great care because a number of Government and Opposition Members have raised it as a matter of concern. The purpose of the high level of scrutiny that the Government have established is to ensure that, when hon. Members on either side of the House raise issues that are worth pursuing, we pursue them. We did that on energy, for example, which the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), first identified. That issue had not been identified before, concern was shared on both sides of the House, and we got the article changed satisfactorily.
	EU law has had primacy over domestic law since the European Court of Justice decision in 1964. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, EU law has had primacy over domestic law since we signed up through the 1972 Act. We have been round this track, and I will not bore the House again.

William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I will not. I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question, and I ask him to listen, as I listen to him.
	Section 2 of the 1972 Act makes absolutely explicit this Parliament's decision to recognise European law as supreme. That was a condition of our entry to the European Union. We could withdraw from that if we wanted—the hon. Gentleman could have his Bill—but we cannot have our cake and eat it. He should bear in mind that there will be many opportunities to examine the issue of primacy further. Our judgment in the Foreign Office, and that of the Council's legal adviser, is that article 1(10) and the declaration alongside it mean that the status of primacy will not be altered. I am happy to examine in detail the House of Lords report and the additional points made by the hon. Gentleman, and if we decide that we are wrong, I will be happy to pursue them.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a matter that concerns me? If, in the course of demands for harmonisation, it was decided that the principle that the national health service should be free at the point of use was incompatible with health systems throughout the Community, which rely almost entirely on insurance-based schemes that are differently organised so that up-front payment is essential, would we be able to retain our system, or would we be told that it was incompatible owing to European law?

Jack Straw: I very much doubt that that would ever happen. In any event, the issue of primacy is not affected by the draft treaty. Let me be clear, however, that if the European Court of Justice sought to do that, there would be a political crisis that would affect our membership of the European Union and be a matter for concern for all Members on both sides of the House.
	The intergovernmental conference process was suspended last December because no agreement on the voting system was possible. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, we expect negotiations to resume shortly. Parliament has been involved in those negotiations to an unprecedented degree.

David Trimble: The Foreign Secretary glossed over an important point. A few months ago, the Government were happy to see discussions at the intergovernmental conference run into the buffers. Now, they are very anxious to advance the issue. In the course of the past week or two, there has been a distinct change in the Government's approach. I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary gave a detailed explanation for that, because in its absence many will conclude that it flows from events in Madrid a few weeks ago.

Jack Straw: There has been no change in the Government's approach. Had Spain, Poland, France and Germany been ready to reach an agreement on voting systems, it is highly probable that, by the end of the Italian presidency or very early on in the Irish presidency, we would have agreed on all the other outstanding issues, including those that were outstanding for the United Kingdom. That was impossible because of the total disagreement between those four nations. The position of two of those countries—Spain and Poland—has changed, and as a result the negotiations have opened up.

David Trimble: The Foreign Secretary is identifying the changes in Poland that flowed from the changes in Spain—which changes were produced by what? We are left with the impression that this Government's policy and approach have changed as a result of the actions of al-Qaeda.

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the high sensitivity to terrorism in Northern Ireland. I have no wish to subscribe to the view that is current in some circles that the Madrid bombing caused the change of Government in Madrid. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we will never know exactly what led to the late change in voting intentions in Spain. There have been many other examples of voting intentions changing at a late stage of a campaign. However, Prime Minister Zapatero has said repeatedly that, as far as he is concerned, he won the election as a result of four years of campaigning, not because of the events of four days. The previous Spanish Government might have changed their position after the elections in any event. We simply do not know. To pick up a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes made, we must deal with where we are. It is where we believed that we might be in November and December but happened not to be—namely, with the negotiations in hand.
	Let me deal with the fourth question, which is about our approach to a referendum. The main case for a referendum is founded on the assertion that a constitution for the European Union will be such a decisive step towards a European superstate that it will end Britain's sovereignty. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes came close to asserting that this afternoon. Yesterday's Daily Mail put matters in its customary way and stated:
	"The constitution will destroy our power to govern ourselves".
	It continued by saying that it would
	"dismantle Britain as a functioning nation state".
	That doom-laden hyperbole is so far removed from the facts that it is tempting to ignore it. However, we cannot do so because that systematic exaggeration of the threat to our nationhood has, over the years, set the framework for a national debate on Europe. So the answer to the question, "Will the draft European constitution end the sovereignty of the nation?" has to be: no. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union explicitly stated that
	"the draft Treaty makes plain . . . that the European Union remains a union of sovereign Member States".
	Its earlier report stated that
	"it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the"
	Convention's "proposals are adopted".
	Of course, that does not stop some Conservative Members wilfully misinterpreting the draft treaty. Let us consider the example of the proposed president of the European Council. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes said that that was further evidence of development into a nation state, ignoring that there is already a president of the European Commission and a president of the European Parliament. The constitution as drafted will ensure that the Union's agenda is better set by elected representatives of national Governments in the European Council. Instead of the manifest inefficiencies and inconsistencies of the rotating six-month presidency, the member states will choose a president of the European Council to chair their meetings and ensure that their decisions are followed up.

Michael Ancram: That is centralising.

Jack Straw: No, it is not. It will ensure greater power in the hands of member states against the overbearing power of the Commission. I believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be in favour of it. The president will have no decision-making power. It is striking that only two groups are against the proposal—the Conservative party and the European Commission. That underlines the incoherence of the Conservative party's position. The proposal means that member states will remove power from the Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider its merits instead of dismissing it in the pursuit of a myth about a European superstate.
	Another claim that the peddlers of the superstate myth make is that the draft treaty massively extends majority voting. Let us consider the reality. The Single European Act of 1986 introduced majority voting for almost all matters to do with the single market. As Lord Heseltine told radio listeners last Saturday, that measure was
	"far and away more significant in the surrender"—
	his words, not mine—
	"of British sovereignty than anything involved in the present constitution".
	He added that "it never occurred to" Mrs. Thatcher "to have a referendum".

Ian Taylor: The Foreign Secretary is right that the Single European Act was the most significant step forward. It was agreed under a Conservative Government and, incidentally, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who voted for it. Before that Act was passed, was not it subject to scrutiny in the House of Commons? Is not that the best way in which to consider the detail of any constitutional treaty that might emerge after Dublin?

Jack Straw: Let me make it clear that I am committed to the maximum scrutiny for any constitutional treaty. I say to hon. Members who may be worried about that that they do not have to look into the crystal ball, because they can examine the record. I have been complimented by hon. Members of all parties on the amount of scrutiny of the draft that has already been achieved. I only regret that the shadow Foreign Secretary has not bothered to turn up to one sitting of the Committee that considers the intergovernmental conference report.

David Heath: Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that many of us do not accept the doom-laden hyperbole, as he put it, and are sceptical of those fair-weather friends of referendums who allowed referendums on nothing while in government and now want referendums on everything in opposition? Nevertheless, we feel strongly that when there is a significant change to the relationship between the European Union and the people of this country, it should be with the informed consent of the people of this country, not simply through a vote in this House or in the Council of Ministers?

Jack Straw: I respect the hon. Gentleman's position, as his and his party's position has been consistent, and it lies in his mouth, not in the mouth of the Conservative party.

Frank Field: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend says that he believes in as much detailed discussion as possible. Can he tell us how many times the Cabinet has considered this draft treaty in detail? Was it a Cabinet decision that we should not have a referendum?

Jack Straw: We have considered it endlessly. The draft White Paper was crawled over by my right hon. Friends, on which I insisted, and I was responsible with officials for drafting it. I spent a large part of what was otherwise classified as a summer holiday working through its detailed text, as I regarded it as an extremely important document, and I also made sure that each of my Cabinet colleagues, who had responsibility for areas in it, knew exactly what they were signing up to. It has therefore been a Cabinet decision. I invite my right hon. Friend to come along—I cannot recall his assiduous attendance at various Committees and debates on the Floor of the House, but I look forward to it—to further considerations.

Frank Field: On the issue of a referendum, was it a Cabinet decision?

Jack Straw: It has been a Cabinet decision, of course.
	Let me make some more progress. After the Single European Act, we had Maastricht. The shadow Foreign Secretary always tries to forget about Maastricht, and we know why. The Maastricht treaty introduced majority voting to fundamental areas of policy making: the Union's broad guidelines on economic policy; its excessive deficits procedure; education; public health; consumer protection; trans-European networks; overseas aid; and the implementation of decisions within the common foreign and security policy. This was a treaty that John Major proclaimed as
	"good . . . for Europe, and a good agreement for the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 862.]
	The Leader of the Opposition and most of the existing shadow Cabinet, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, trooped into the Lobby in support of Maastricht, proclaiming it as a great triumph of European diplomacy. The shadow Foreign Secretary made a wonderful speech in favour of Maastricht—he did not just skulk into the Lobby following the Whip—in which he was even moved to say:
	"I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate, with our industries unable to penetrate it."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]
	It is a complicated sentence, but essentially he was saying that on balance he was in favour of a superstate—which, let me say, I am not—rather than against it.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is adept at switching his position backwards and forwards. We have debated this issue a number of times. I recall—I am sure that he has forgotten—that back on 11 December 2002, I asked him to refresh the House's memory about whether he had voted on the Maastricht treaty itself and on the issue of a referendum? At column 307, I said:
	"am I right in thinking that he voted against a referendum on Maastricht?"
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
	"The Secretary of State might remember that I was out of the House at the time of the treaty."
	That is very careful wording, because he may have been out of the House at the time of the treaty, but for sure he was in the House when it came to be considered. He was suffering from the most extraordinary amnesia, because I pressed him again and he said:
	"I do not recall a vote on a referendum."—[Official Report, 11 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 307.]
	This was the key and critical issue facing the Conservative party, splitting it apart, and he could not remember whether he was in favour of or against a referendum, even though he had spoken against it.

Andrew Turner: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No. It is important that the right hon. and learned Gentleman learn a bit from this. Finally, when I produced the voting list, which has his name on it, he owned up and pleaded guilty to having voted against a referendum on Maastricht. By God, it was difficult to get him to own up to the truth. The truth is that he has always been a closet pro-European. The reason he is so unconvincing today is that neither his heart nor his brain is in the task that he is having to undertake.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary has accused me of being a closet pro-European. I wonder what he is. Let us look at his election address—not from 1983, when we know he had to be loyal, but from 1979. We were told:
	"Jack Straw was against Britain's entry to the Market and has campaigned ever since against its nonsenses."
	Is that the Foreign Secretary's position today?

Jack Straw: No, but it was my position then. I have been very straightforward about this. Moreover, I do not suffer from amnesia. I am perfectly willing and ready, and always have been, to explain the position that I took. After all, it was entirely public. I was active in the no campaign in 1975.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to think about the position into which he is trying to push the Conservative party. He was appalling, even by his own standards, when answering questions put by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). What his right hon. and learned Friend was asking—and what will be asked right up to the election and throughout it—is, "What is the Conservative party's policy in respect of the European Union?"
	We know what the Conservative party's policy is in respect of this draft treaty, but let us say that for some reason it did not become European law. That is perfectly possible, although I do not know what the odds are. Let us say that we were left with the existing treaties—the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. Would the Conservatives accept them or not? Most of what they are objecting to today is not in the new constitutional treaty. Most of the provisions to which they object so violently were negotiated by them in 1972.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman starts rabbiting on to me about the clause relating to mutual solidarity and loyalty. That is a lift from article 11 of the Maastricht treaty, which states:
	"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman signed up to that. Is he going to tell the country that he will tear all that up? What process will he employ? How will he deliver on a promise that is easy to make but impossible to fulfil, on the common fisheries policy? He will certainly not deliver on it if he tears up this constitution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have an answer to that.

Richard Shepherd: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I want to make some progress.
	I said that there were four questions, but there is a fifth, which defies adequate explanation. It concerns the position of the Conservative party. As we know, it is now led by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), his support for Maastricht notwithstanding. He is leading the party towards an anti-European view, which underlines a profoundly defeatist view of Britain's position in the world. Beneath that lies a sense, based on the Conservatives' experience of the Major Government, that Britain lacks influence and will be unable to punch its weight in any international forum, including the European Union.
	The leader of the Conservative party is now calling for a referendum on this treaty. He said before that there had to be a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty, because it was
	"an unacceptable step towards an integrated federal superstate".
	I have looked at the Amsterdam treaty again, and I cannot see for the life of me what caused such a fuss. What is it about the treaty that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes thinks will lead us towards an integrated federal superstate? He does not know, although he keeps quoting it. The leader of his party said that Amsterdam would lead the way towards an integrated federal superstate. Can he name just two or three items in that treaty that would lead the way towards an integrated federal superstate? He cannot name one.
	There is one thing in the Amsterdam treaty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have begun to support, if Conservative Members had even bothered to read it before coming out with this nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition talks of supporting a more flexible Europe, in which groups of countries can come together and do their own thing without necessarily having an impact on other countries. That was in the Amsterdam treaty. It is called flexible co-operation. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome it or reject it? Every time a treaty has been produced since we came to power—though never before it—the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his leader have said that it will take us towards a superstate. Subsequently, however, it becomes apparent that we are nowhere near a superstate, which rather undermines the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment today.
	I gather that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is half back in favour with Conservative Front Benchers. He said of Nice that
	"the proposed . . . treaty would do what Guy Fawkes failed to do—blow up parliamentary government in Britain".
	Several years have passed since the Nice treaty came into force, and parliamentary Government seems to me to be alive and well in Britain. Indeed, the Conservative party is making use of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way in a few moments. Contrary to the myths peddled by Conservative Members, no superstate has appeared: Britain maintains its seat of the UN Security Council; NATO remains the cornerstone of European territorial defence; and Her Majesty the Queen remains our Head of State.

Richard Shepherd: The Foreign Secretary's parliamentary sidestepping is one thing, but the truth is that the people who should be asked about the Amsterdam, Maastricht, Nice and other treaties are the British public, who have never been consulted. That is the crucial question that lies before the House today.

Jack Straw: At least the hon. Gentleman is being consistent—[Interruption.] I know that he has consistently argued for a referendum, and may I say that my party is the only one ever to have provided a referendum on the EU, back in 1975? The hon. Gentleman can make his point, but the Conservative Front Benchers cannot. The issue now is not the aggregation of the treaties, but whether or not we have a referendum on this specific constitution if it becomes law.

Angus Robertson: Notwithstanding the sins of the Conservative party—signing up, among other things, to the common fisheries policy—is there not a wider issue concerning the disconnection of the wider public on European issues? Would not a referendum be a good way of closing and ending that disconnection? In that context, is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a Bill before the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a consultative referendum on the constitution? Would it not be odd to have a vote north of the border—I would, of course, welcome that—but deny the voters of England, Wales and Northern Ireland their say on such an important matter?

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's case, which has been made by several other Members who support the draft and our membership of the EU. In our current judgment, it is better to scrutinise it here.

William Cash: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way one last time.

William Cash: The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly stated that this is no more than an accumulation of treaties. Does he not accept that the final provisions of the proposed constitutional treaty state that all those treaties will be revoked, but reapplied without prejudice to the acquis communautaire, so they will fall within the legal framework of the new constitution, which is quite a different thing?

Jack Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have never said that it is just an accumulation of treaties. I said rather that it is a consolidation of existing treaties, which partly changes the decision-making process and partly provides for new powers. We need to examine it in each particular respect. I do not subscribe to the Conservative view that we should exaggerate the effect of the draft treaty, but equally I have never sought to minimise it. What we need is a straightforward debate. On any analysis, however, I do say that it involves less significant change than either the Maastricht treaty or the Single European Act. I believe that that is absolutely the case.
	Even on the role of European Court of Justice in respect of common foreign and security policy, article III-282 states clearly:
	"The Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Articles I-39 and I-40"—
	they are the paving provisions for foreign, security and defence policy—
	"and the provisions of Chapter II of Title V of Part III concerning the common foreign and security policy."
	So everything that relates to common foreign and security policy, with some tiny exceptions, is excluded under that provision.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No; I want to make progress and there are others who want to get in.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Jack Straw: All right—I shall give way one last time.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful, but it is pure sophistry on the part of the Foreign Secretary, who ought to know what is in the draft constitution, to deny that the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over the whole of article 15, which binds member states to giving active and unreserved support to the common foreign and security policy
	"in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
	If a state strays from that obligation, it will therefore be breaking the constitution, and that question will be decided not by this House but by the European Court of Justice. That is what the constitution clearly says, and no amount of talk about paving clauses or other articles can alter that fact.
	Can we get back to some honesty and clarity in this debate, and stop the Foreign Secretary trying to pretend that the constitution contains elements which it does not, and that it lacks elements which it does in fact contain?

Jack Straw: I should tell the right hon. Gentleman, as he calms down, that I understand the point he makes. I raised it during the intergovernmental conference, and with the legal experts who work for the Council, not the Commission. Their counter-argument is that there is no need to exclude the jurisdiction of the ECJ under article 15 because it has no jurisdiction under that article. Its jurisdiction only arises operationally, under chapter 2 of part 3, and after examining this issue in immense detail I am satisfied that that is so. If I can be convinced that we are wrong—by just slightly better lawyers than the right hon. Gentleman—we will reconsider the charge, but there is no issue of principle here. What we need is a mature debate. Rather than creating the myth that this provision will lead to the ECJ's telling the House whether or not we should be loyal to the European Union, or that we should take a different view in respect of Iraq—such things could never happen—we should apply ourselves to the text and recognise that much of the wording on the common security and defence policy was first included in the draft not by the Convention, but by those who drafted Maastricht.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jack Straw: I am going to close. The myths about the constitution leading to a European superstate are now the stock in trade for today's Conservatives, who would put British jobs, British trade and British influence at risk by marginalising this country within Europe. This is the clear political divide on Europe: between a party of isolation and weakness, and a Government who are getting on with the job of reforming the structures of an enlarged Union, so that it can better deliver on the issues that matter to people. In the light of cross-border threats and of the chance to develop a market with which we do half our trade, the idea that Britain should withdraw into splendid isolation and detachment from the European Union is frankly absurd. We need to engage in Europe to make it more effective at dealing with common threats, and more effective at delivering the jobs and growth that people want.
	We are negotiating a treaty that, if satisfactorily concluded, will help Europe better to deliver on these issues. The treaty sets out clearly the framework of an effective Europe of nation states. It acts only where its member states have conferred power upon it, and it is able to function more efficiently. Parliament has already been involved in this process to an unprecedented degree, and it will be for Parliament to decide whether the treaty becomes part of British law. I therefore urge the House to oppose the motion and to support the amendment.

Menzies Campbell: I doubt very much whether a single vote will be changed as a result of these proceedings, or whether any hearts and minds will be significantly changed either. In a sense, these debates, which have almost become part of parliamentary punctuation, have enabled Members to restate cases that have been stated with varying degrees of eloquence for some time—at least since the constitution was first mooted.
	I still have some difficulty with the question of the primacy of European law. I raised this point with the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has another engagement and has apologised for his absence. If such primacy was part of the jurisprudence of the European Community from 1964 onwards, inevitably, by virtue of our accession in 1972, we must be taken as having accepted it. I find it difficult to understand that a distinction is to be drawn as far as the application of that primacy is concerned simply because a document will be produced that asserts it once again.
	The only way to look at this properly is to put oneself in the position of a domestic judge. Today, a domestic judge faced with an issue to which European Union law is relevant is obliged to apply that law. The day after a constitution or treaty was ratified by this House, that judge would be in precisely the same position as he is today. It seems to me that a wholly artificial distinction is being drawn.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for this motion. We do so for reasons that I hope to explain in a moment or two, but I want to make the point that we have consistently argued that a test has to be applied when any question arises of a change in the nature of the relationship between Westminster and Brussels. Looking again, as I did in preparation for this debate, at that test as we have set it out on previous occasions, I freely accept, as I hope others will, that tests of this nature are inevitably subjective; they can never be empirical.
	The test that we have set out on previous occasions is that if the provisions that the Government eventually bring before the House involve any major shift of control, any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions or any alteration to the balance between member states and those institutions, a referendum will be necessary. The Foreign Secretary argues that those criteria are not fulfilled. However, a document such as that which failed to achieve agreement in Rome would necessarily trigger a referendum because in our judgment it would meet the criteria that my right hon. and hon. Friends have set out.

William Cash: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have great respect for many of his views on this subject, but does he accept that the House of Lords report to which I have already referred says explicitly in the context of the European Communities Act 1972:
	"In short, Parliament did not hand over a blank cheque, legally or politically. The Government should set out their view on the Kompetenz-Kompetenz question clearly to Parliament and to citizens in the UK."?
	Does that not imply that it is essential not only that the Government should set out their views but that they should put the matter beyond all doubt by introducing domestic legislation that would ensure that our judges gave effect, if necessary, to clear and unambiguous law inconsistent with the 1972 Act?

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman put that point to the Foreign Secretary. In the interests of brevity, I simply adopt the Foreign Secretary's response and ask the hon. Gentleman to put himself in the position of a judge today and a judge the day after a document of the kind that we have been discussing had finally been ratified by the House.
	We do not have such final proposals before us today; nor inevitably could we have them. However, we are entitled to assume that what is likely to emerge from the process into which the Irish have put additional force and life is likely to bear substantial similarity in substance to the previous proposals that formed the basis of the discussion in Rome. It is my judgment—I accept that it is a matter of judgment—that the proposals raise constitutional implications that it would be right to put to the people of the United Kingdom. I say that as a matter of law, but also as a matter of politics. One of the features of the debate about Europe and our relationship with Europe is the extent to which we—the people of the United Kingdom—have become disconnected. One of the ways in which that connection could more effectively be restored is to give people the opportunity to endorse what is a very substantial change.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that any new treaty will be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny? If we then had a yes-no referendum on whether to endorse it, he—like me—would no doubt campaign for a yes vote, if the treaty emerges in the form that seems likely. A yes vote would be a clear endorsement, but what would a no vote mean? We cannot anticipate the result, but it appears that a no vote would be interpreted as giving a mandate for a blank cheque to negotiate further changes to the existing treaty, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and the treaty of accession, and even to reopen the issue of the primacy of European law. If a no vote could be interpreted in that way by those who are demanding a referendum—notably, the right-wing press—would not it be a dangerous further step to take after comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny, which has been regarded as adequate on all previous occasions?

Menzies Campbell: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not seek to visit the sins of his Front-Bench colleagues on me. The point that he made to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was not answered with quite the cohesive intellectual response that one would expect from a prominent member of the Scottish Bar. On 1 May, we will admit the new member states without any constitutional change, under the existing arrangements enshrined in the treaty of Nice. When the proceedings on the constitution became becalmed, I suspected that all we would have needed was 18 months of trying to live under the arrangements in the Nice treaty and there would have been a clamour for a constitution, because of the sclerosis that would undoubtedly have occurred and the inability of the European Union to operate in the absence of a constitutional document of the kind that we are discussing. I do not seek to reopen any of the previous treaties, but I accept the Foreign Secretary's point that in many respects they are opaque and difficult to understand. It is often difficult to find the details of particular competences, which require substantial searching. The argument in favour of a constitution that sets down clearly the competences—and the extent to which they are restricted to Brussels or domestic Parliaments—is essential.

Richard Shepherd: The sincerity of the Liberal Democrats on referendums on such matters is not in question. Indeed, Paddy Ashdown sought a referendum at an early stage of the Maastricht process and he supported a private Member's Bill on the issue. However, it cannot be enough to say at each stage of the constitutional changes, "We are for a referendum", and then when no referendum takes place, say that the matter is closed. The argument relating to a referendum on this new measure is that in a sense it is reopening the position that the Liberal Democrats took—that a referendum was appropriate on Maastricht.

Menzies Campbell: I see it not as reopening those issues, but as an effort to consolidate them. The hon. Gentleman is right about consistency. My recollection is that Mr. Bryan Gould, who was then a Member of Parliament, introduced a new clause during the Maastricht debates that would have required a referendum to be held on the issue, and the Liberal Democrats voted for it.
	In 1995, we had a rare Liberal Democrat Opposition day that resulted in the motion that we had tabled being passed. The motion argued that if there was a material change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, such change should be ratified and endorsed by a referendum. Not all those who now argue either for or against a referendum found time to vote on that occasion. The result was something like 33–0, which was a considerable victory for us, but the occasion did not command, I am sorry to say, much parliamentary support.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to Paddy Ashdown, who was the first of all the party leaders to say that entry to the single currency involved not only economic considerations but constitutional and political implications and that therefore there should be a referendum on it. That is now the view of almost all Members.

Andrew Selous: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has adequately answered the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about what would happen if the British people voted no in a referendum. What would be the position and how would we proceed?

Menzies Campbell: It would be deeply damaging to the European cause; it would be foolish to do other than admit that. We cannot refrain from giving people the opportunity to pass judgment on issues of that kind, if we believe that is the right thing to do, simply because we are concerned about the outcome. I hope that my confidence is not misplaced, but I am confident that such a referendum can be won. Indeed, it most certainly will be won; the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and I certainly spend enough time going around the country arguing the case.
	The case should be argued and the referendum can be won. Indeed, if I had a complaint about Members on the Treasury Bench, it would be that there has been reticence about arguing the case for Europe. To some extent, that has been overtaken by the enthusiasm that the Prime Minister displayed yesterday during his report of the EU summit that he had just attended.

Ian Davidson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

John Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: No, I want to make progress. I have been generous in giving way, and although I am not subject to the time limit on speeches I do not want to trespass unnecessarily on Back Benchers' time.
	Those in favour of a constitution for Europe should be prepared to argue their case in order to reconnect the individual electors of this country with the EU. There is a large amount of shadow boxing in these matters. Foreign policy, defence and taxation are red-line issues for the whole House and exchanges designed to suggest that the Government are somehow willing to make concessions on them are artificial. Those matters are the quintessential responsibility of this Parliament; it is notable that they have not been devolved to Wales or to Scotland.
	Earlier, I said that the existing treaty system is opaque. It certainly needs clarity and the purpose of the constitution is to set down and define the role and powers of the institutions of the European Union. As I have already said, we will be able to admit the accession states on 1 May; it is not constitutionally necessary to have the proposed constitution but it is politically essential.
	As I have said before, we must bring an end to the constant tinkering with the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. We cannot continue to conduct the affairs of the EU as if we were engaged in a perpetual Maoist cultural revolution. When we consider what things have been like under the existing membership, we can imagine how difficult they are likely to be when there are 25 members. That culture has too often been characterised by last-minute compromise, set against a background of physical exhaustion and horse-trading.

Denis MacShane: Like the Liberal party conference.

Menzies Campbell: If only.
	My support arises from my unabashed enthusiasm for the European Union, which dates back to the 1975 referendum campaign when I shared platforms for the yes campaign with such distinguished parliamentarians as Lord Whitelaw, Brian Walden and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. The yes campaign was very distinguished—even aristocratic. I believe firmly that, as the Prime Minister and his predecessor have said, Britain should be at the heart of Europe.
	As I have said before, I believe that Britain should be a member of the single European currency. I believe in an effective common foreign and security policy, which is what Maastricht envisaged. Indeed, Maastricht went on to envisage the possibility of a common defence—something that is not much talked about these days, but it most certainly was in the treaty. A constitution of the type proposed will be entirely advantageous not only to Europe but to us, too.
	The background for that is my overwhelming belief in the need for co-operation with our European partners. Let me take the illustration of international terrorism. Does anyone really believe that we can achieve success in that campaign, unless there is much more co-operation than we have previously experienced? The exchange of intelligence and the movement of individuals and money all require co-operation with our European partners. How would we make environmental advances, unless we do so co-operatively?

Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for taking an intervention. I have waited patiently for him to address the fundamental rights aspect of the constitution, and it would be enormously helpful to those of us who have some doubts about the wisdom of the European constitution if he would do so. I raise that issue in particular because he mentioned the supremacy of community law at the beginning his speech. Of course he will be aware that five years' work has gone ahead in Northern Ireland to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind that the provisions on fundamental rights in the constitution will also have supremacy, have we all been going through the razzmatazz in Northern Ireland needlessly on a Bill of Rights?

Menzies Campbell: I would hesitate to suggest that razzmatazz in Northern Ireland had been needless. The hon. Lady, who is an expert in the field, knows much more about it than I do. Of course the charter of fundamental rights supplements and, in some respects, adds to the European convention on human rights, but the convention is one to which we have always been a signatory. The change that occurred when the Government came to power was to pass legislation that allowed British citizens the right to invoke the provisions of the convention and to seek to vindicate their rights under that convention in British domestic courts, without having to go Strasbourg.
	The fact that the fundamental rights have now been introduced seems to be one of those constitutional implications to which I have previously referred. The charter introduces something new and not something for which the Government had a mandate, given their manifesto. So my answer to the hon. Lady must be that I do not purport to pass judgment on the position in Northern Ireland, but I most certainly believe that the European convention on human rights and the charter raise, as a consequence of the charter in particular, some fundamental questions of a constitutional nature, hence justifying the argument—in my view, in part at least—for a referendum.
	On a number of occasions, I have talked about the need to reconnect the citizen with the European Union. Hardly a day goes by when we do not open our newspapers to find dire predictions about the number of people who are likely to vote in the next general election to the House, but how many people are likely to vote in the European elections, no matter how vigorous the campaign might be? That will be a measure of the extent to which Europe is not seen as something of significant importance in the lives of many people. That is why I argue that a referendum on the issues with which we are concerned today, allowing the British people the opportunity to pass judgment and to endorse what is proposed, would be entirely in their interests and in ours as well, so I have no doubt that the opportunity offered by a referendum is one that should not be passed up.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Ian Davidson: I take as my opening text the Prime Minister's words when he spoke at the Labour party conference a couple of years ago:
	"We're at our best when at our boldest."
	It seems that this is an opportunity for the Government to be bold, to take the risk and the chance to trust the people. We are also currently engaged in an exercise called the big conversation, and we have an opportunity to have a conversation with the British people that will result in a conclusion—a vote at the end if we go down the road of a referendum. This opportunity should not be missed, because I fear very much that the big conversation is being driven by the ideas of those American political theorists, Simon and Garfunkel, who in their seminal text, "The Boxer", said:
	"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
	And disregards the rest".
	The only opinions that will be listened to are those that fit what is already acceptable. However, an open-ended decision to hold a referendum and to be bound by the result would galvanise political opinion in Britain.
	The suggestion that line-by-line political scrutiny by the House would be sufficient misses the point about the disconnection between the political process and the people in the country. Endless hours in which lawyers quibble over details that are fascinating to them is not the same as forcing the British people to make a decision that we, who see ourselves as their political masters in many ways—regrettably in my view—would agree to be bound by. That opportunity should not be missed.
	To those who ask what no means, I would have thought that no in a referendum clearly means that we will not accept what is being offered. Those who suggest that this would be a problem only for Britain are missing the point. A no by any country that is given the opportunity in any way to ratify the constitution and declines to do so means that the constitution has to go into the melting pot. If the Portuguese decide to vote it down, it will not be a problem solely for the Portuguese, and it will not be a solely British problem if we decide to vote it down. It will be a problem for all those who are gathered together to debate how matters should be progressed. We must reject completely the assumption that we cannot have a referendum in case we come out with what the Government would see as the wrong decision that leaves us isolated in Europe. We must recognise that other countries are prepared to trust their peoples. Why are we not prepared to trust ours?

Denis MacShane: Let us follow my hon. Friend's train of thought. If there is a no vote and the Government bring back a new treaty, will there be a second referendum—and a third and a fourth?

Ian Davidson: That is an interesting point. I remind the Minister of what happened in Ireland when the people had the temerity to turn down a treaty. They were then obliged under international pressure to hold another referendum. If the Government tell us that they are willing to hold a second referendum if the people vote no in the first one and they then make substantial changes to the treaty, I would support them in those circumstances. I would be willing to support a second referendum if the first referendum resulted in rejection of the constitution. The assumption is again being made that we are the only people who might turn the constitution down. If other people reject it and we have a completely new constitution, it seems fair that the people should have the opportunity to make a further decision.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the two instances in which there has been a second referendum, the outrageous situation emerged in which the rules were changed in respect of financing, advertising and the rest of it? In the case of the Irish referendum, that occurred on 24 December when most good Irishmen were in the pubs.

Ian Davidson: I certainly hope that the Government in this country would have sufficient integrity not to seek to change the rules for a second referendum should we get to that stage. That would be outrageous. We would need to pay attention to how much both sides spent and we would have to consider whether the allegedly impartial information provided by the Electoral Commission and others was, in fact, impartial. None the less, the pattern of the referendum should not then be changed.
	I want to raise with the Minister the issue of how people will express their views. I want to avoid a situation in which the European elections or the general election are seen as referendums on the European constitution. Issues relating to Europe—as we know from the Conservative party—can split parties. A substantial minority of Labour Members favour a referendum and would wish to oppose the constitution as it is currently put forward in such a referendum. People should not have to choose in such a way given that there are two cross-cutting cleavages and we have the opportunity to park the European issue in a referendum so that a decision can be made on it separately from the European or general elections.
	Lest the Minister be in any doubt about the scale of pubic opinion in his party, I tell him that opinion polls conducted among the major trade unions affiliated to the Labour party show that 81 per cent. of Unison members polled, 78 per cent. of Amicus members, 88 per cent. of Transport and General Workers Union members and 80 per cent. of GMB members favour a referendum. It is clear that those who speak up on the matter are not necessarily in the majority, but as the Minister knows, expressing dissent from the Government's view on anything is not necessarily a career-enhancing move. Several people would prefer to wait until a later stage before expressing their view. All that the minority of Labour Members have is the people, the arguments and the capitalist press, and that combination managed to cause a fair amount of damage on the question of the euro. I notice that those who were on the losing side—the Government side—during the euro debate are exactly the same people who are against a referendum and in favour of ramming through the creation of a European superstate.
	In the debate that we are having tonight, and the one that will go on, I hope that people will not revert to citing the smears and distortions that we often hear from spinmeisters in the Government, especially the accusation that those of us who are against the Government proposal to ram through the measure without a referendum are simply little Englanders. I might be little, but I plead not guilty to the other charge. A number of us are linking up with "Democracy International", which is a multinational campaign to try to achieve referendums throughout the European Union. I hope that the Government recognise that the argument for referendums on such an important issue is widespread throughout the European Union, and that they appreciate that those of us who argue for referendums in this country and elsewhere in the European Union are doing so in the spirit of internationalism.
	I also hope that the Government will refrain from arguing that those of us who are in favour of a referendum and against the new constitution are automatically in favour of withdrawing from the European Union. To the best of my knowledge, no Labour Member who argues in favour of a referendum is in favour of withdrawing from the European Union. Repeating that accusation, even though it is repeatedly denied, is a deliberate attempt to distort the terms of the debate. The Minister is not a stupid man. Indeed, he is a bright man and, on occasions, a pleasant man. He has bought me libations on several occasions—perhaps too seldom to recall them all just now. I hope that he will intervene on his perhaps less fastidious colleagues to ensure that that accusation is not repeated.
	I have touched on the question of what will happen if the constitution is rejected. That will be a problem not only for us, but for Europe. If the constitution is rejected by several European states, the problem will be much more collective than would otherwise have been the case.
	I regret the opportunistic way in which what happened in Madrid and elsewhere is advanced as an argument in favour of the accretion of more powers at the centre. How can we possibly trust those in the European Union who are incapable of stopping thieves and vagabonds robbing the common agricultural policy blind to police against terror in the EU? It is clear that before there is any further accretion of powers to the EU, it must put its own house in order. The British Government have made insufficient efforts to reform the way in which the EU operates, to increase the financial probity of the schemes it runs, or to examine the value for money obtained, for example, in foreign aid programmes. Before we give the EU more money to spend, we should ensure that it uses the powers and assets that it has better.
	We must remember that we in Parliament have power as a result of the votes of the people. The referendum is important. At a time when there is severe dislocation between those who govern and those who are governed, we have an opportunity to give the people a choice. We should do so.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The constitution is the most important measure that I have faced in my 20 years as a Member of Parliament, and which the House has faced since this country entered the European Economic Community in 1973. However, the Prime Minister's sole preoccupation is to get it through quickly.
	I respect those—we have heard some of them speak in this short debate—who argue for a highly integrated Europe with a single structure, a new legal order, a permanent President, a Foreign Minister and extensive new powers over immigration, criminal justice and the economies of member states. I do not agree with them, but I can at least debate with them. I have no respect whatever for those who deny the epic importance of what the House is now considering—who refer to it as "a tidying-up exercise". The cure for that is simply to read the constitution in its draft form.
	The draft constitution defines and limits the powers of member states probably better and more extensively than those of the European institutions. It is just as much a written constitution for this country as it is for Europe, and we in this country have not had a written constitution since Cromwell briefly introduced one following the civil war. There is a massive transfer upwards of powers to the new Union. That fact is inescapable—it is written on almost every page of the draft.
	We have again debated the primacy clause today, and the Government have again claimed that article 10 simply repeats what is in treaty law. It does not do that. There is nothing in existing European treaties about the primacy of the European Court of Justice or of those treaties over national laws. It is a convention that has been established in the case law of the European Court of Justice that where directives and regulations conflict with national laws, those directives and regulations shall prevail, but on those foundations the draft constitution erects an unqualified assertion of the primacy of the constitution and all the laws flowing from it over the laws of member states.

Mark Hendrick: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the draft is some sort of integrationist plot, will he tell me why the Conservative party is happy for there to be a President of the European Commission and a President of the European Parliament, yet, in terms of the Heads of Government, unhappy for there to be a President of the Council?

David Heathcoat-Amory: Oh yes, we are creating a Europe of presidents all right. I can add to that. There will be a president of the European Court of Justice, a president of the European Central Bank, a permanent President of the Council, a President of the Commission and a President of the European Parliament. It is a presidents' plot, if it is a plot at all. It is not a people's Europe that we are developing—it is a politicians Europe with jobs for more politicians. If that is the Europe that the hon. Gentleman wants, he has it in the draft.
	The point that I was making, which has not been contradicted from those on the Government Front Bench, is that the primacy clause, article 10, will extend far further than anything in the existing treaties. It will implement the same primacy over the intergovernmental pillars—that is, justice and home affairs, and the common foreign and security policy—for the first time. It is not just the laws of the new Union that will have primacy, but the constitution itself—that is, the obligations in the constitution—the solidarity obligation on member states and the entire EU charter of fundamental rights. That takes up the whole of part II of the constitution. The charter of fundamental rights—all of it—will therefore have primacy over the laws of member states.
	In his remarks, the Foreign Secretary claimed that there was a House of Lords report that showed that there is a shift from the Commission to member states. It would have been less disingenuous of him if he had not told us that that report came out long before the end of the Convention—before the Convention even defined or debated the powers of the Commission. So if anyone is peddling myths in this debate, it is the Foreign Secretary.
	It has been asserted that the constitution will be simpler than the treaties. It is, in fact, longer than the treaties that it replaces. It has been claimed that it will bring clarity to the division of power between member states and the new Union, but most policy areas will be shared. There is no other constitution in the world that defines all the policies to be shared. What is the definition of sharing? When the Union legislates, member states will have to leave that area of policy entirely to the new Union. I hope that none of us have to share a flat with someone whose definition of sharing is that when they move into the flat, we have to move out. That is the definition written in the draft constitution and it is not under review. It is not a red line issue for the Government.
	Criminal justice, perhaps, gives us the best overall example of what is at stake. There are 21 completely new articles covering justice and home affairs in the draft constitution. They cover the definition of serious crimes and the penalties that will attach to them in general areas such as corruption, computer crime and organised crime. All that will be harmonised and decided by the Union by majority voting. The same is true of criminal procedures, rules of evidence and the rights of the accused. All these things will be decided by majority voting.
	The Minister for Europe tabled an amendment in the Convention disagreeing with that in unequivocal terms. I give him credit for that, at least. He said that it is essential that the relevant article is rejected in its present form and made subject to unanimity if it survives. Why, then, do the Government now say that they have so-called wriggle room in respect of the criminal justice procedures? Those go to the heart of what the House is about. We have just had a Criminal Justice Bill going through the House that attempted to define and, in some cases, limit court proceedings and the rights of the accused. It is the essence of democracy that such matters are debated here where we are answerable to our constituents and ultimately to an electorate. All that goes upwards to the new Union.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we simply put into our criminal justice Bill the words "notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972" and followed that with what we wanted, we would be able to achieve our objectives?

David Heathcoat-Amory: With his ingenious Bill, which I have signed, my hon. Friend would go a long way towards establishing a bulwark against the new constitution. I wish him well with that, but it forms no part of the Government's case in the forthcoming negotiation. The irony is that the entire exercise was supposed to be not about writing a new constitution—that is alluded to only at the end of the instructions given to the convention—but about bringing democracy to Europe. That means bringing Europe closer to its citizens. That was the instruction given to us. How does it bring Europe closer to the citizen to take more decisions away from member states, away from the people and upwards to the most remote tier of Government of all in Europe? That is why this is in essence a democratic issue.
	In my view, this is not only wrong, it is dangerous. It breeds alienation and despair, and ultimately extremism, if decisions that should be taken here about the coercive power of the state, about imprisoning people, about our foreign policy and about the conduct of our economic and employment policies, are taken away from the Chamber, which is answerable to an identified electorate, and given to a Union that is beyond any sort of democratic control.
	There is only one solution and that is to ask the people. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) that that is not merely an option, it is essential. The Government have no mandate for this European constitution. I have a copy of the relevant part of the Labour party's manifesto on which it stood at the last election. There is nothing whatever in it about a European constitution. That differs from the Maastricht treaty, which featured prominently in the Conservative manifesto of 1992. In any event, we shall have a referendum about Maastricht when and if the Government make up their mind about the big issue of Maastricht, which is the European currency, the euro. As I have said, there is nothing in the manifesto, on which the Labour party won the last election, about a new European constitution. That is why we need to ask the people.
	If the Government are right, and conceivably they could persuade the people that this is only a modest consolidating measure of no great consequence compared with weighty issues—such as whether Hartlepool should have a mayor, or whether Sedgefield, I think that that is the next one, will decide whether it will have a mayor—let them have the confidence to advance that argument and win that argument. That is, if they really can persuade the people that this European constitution is of no great importance. I will put my case, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the arbitration of the British people.
	Let us remind ourselves that the opening words of this constitution are about reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe. How do the Government know that it reflects the will of the citizens of Europe without asking them? It would be an outrage if the Government were to bounce this issue through a supine House of Commons in which they have a temporary majority and take us into a binding written constitution for the first time in our history without asking the people for their consent. That is why federalists and those who want an integrated Europe joined forces with us in a common endeavour to ask the people, to trust the people, and to get a vote on the issue this year.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I listened with great care to what he said. He confused a series of concepts. The idea of having a referendum for a mayor is a local issue and entirely separate from a national issue as to whether there should be a referendum on joining a European constitution. In the United States they have many referendums on, for example, whether people want a supermarket. That is not the same as a national referendum on a national issue, which would lie within the heart of this Parliament.
	One of the earliest stories that I learned many years ago was that a senior figure, Lloyd George, brought in a younger man called Harold Macmillan. Harold Macmillan asked him what was the essence of a good speech. Lloyd George said that it was to choose one's themes and to stay with them. I will do that in the time that is available to me.
	My first theme is that of ever-closer union. The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the people, the citizens of the European Union. The citizens of the European Union benefit from free trade and the single market because the Single European Act was signed in 1986 under Lady Thatcher's leadership. They benefit from the sense of security, because the continent was ravaged by wars for 1,000 years.

Eric Forth: That is because of NATO.

Stuart Bell: I will come to NATO in a moment, and it is part of my theme—I am always grateful for sedentary interventions by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
	We will discuss the global war on terrorism, but EU citizens have those two major benefits, which bring the citizens of Europe closer to the concept of the European Union. The concept of the ever-closer union was adopted by Sir Edward Heath way back in 1972, when we signed up to it for the first time. We moved closer when we signed the Single European Act; we moved closer still when we signed the Maastricht treaty; and we will go closer again when the European Union moves eastwards and grows to 25 states—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it may grow to 27 states. That is the ever-closer union that we are debating tonight.
	In this debate, I have been struck by how the House of Commons has suddenly become a Chamber for barristers. Perhaps that is because the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) are barristers.

Eric Forth: What are you?

Stuart Bell: I shall make my confession in a moment. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is a QC, and I must humbly admit that I, too, am a barrister. However, I will not dwell on the legality of the debate. We have examined clauses, interstices in Lords reports, article 12 and article 13A—I almost stood up and asked what article 15 says in the hope that someone would give me an answer. The debate is not about the pernickety points of the various articles in such a huge constitutional document; it is about the principle of ever-closer union and whether it should be put to the test of a referendum.
	When I listened to the right hon. Member for Wells I was struck by the reversal of Conservative policy. Over the past century, Conservative party policy was to win an election, govern the country and, after four to five years, to return to the country, render an account and seek a further mandate. What has happened to that principle? The only time that principle slipped was on the Maastricht treaty, when, in order to keep the Tory party together, the Prime Minister at the time offered a referendum on the single currency. The only time that a Conservative Government have ever offered a referendum was on joining the single currency, and the only reason for that was to keep the Conservative party together.
	I shall make another confession, since I have made one already: in opposition, I would never have agreed to a Labour Government having a referendum on a single currency. I take the single currency not as a constitutional matter, not as a matter of profound significance to our country, but simply as completing the architecture of the single market, which Lady Thatcher introduced in 1986.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are watching an Opposition tactic? Because they cannot win votes in the House, they are trying to persuade the wider public, with the help of certain friends in the media, in order to obtain a no result. Hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) want not only a no vote from the country in a referendum on this issue, but to unravel the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty, the Maastricht treaty and earlier treaties, which were agreed by previous Conservative Governments.

Stuart Bell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are seeing opposition for the sake of opposition. Everybody who watched the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes could see the great difficulty in which he found himself, which happened because he does not believe in the argument.
	On opposition for opposition's sake, I sympathise with the Opposition because day in, day out we sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty. I remember coming into this Chamber in daylight and going out next morning in daylight, never having seen the evening.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that political power is given to this House by the British people at the time of a general election and that that power is not ours to give away to any other body without the express consent of our electorate?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me to my third theme—leadership. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in his place, because with his French background he, too, will remember Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin. He is nodding, of course, because he has read his history books. In 1848, that gentleman was the leader of a faction that stormed the National Assembly. Afterwards, he was found at the very back of the crowd, and someone said, "What are you doing? You're their leader." He replied, "Yes, I am their leader. That's why I'm here at the back—I'm following them." We saw from the leadership of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes that he was following the crowd behind him. That is in the interests of neither the Conservative party nor the country.
	My fourth theme is NATO, which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned from a sedentary position. A significant event took place yesterday, when seven new nations from the east joined NATO and added to the sense of security to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred. NATO is responsible for our territorial defence; it is equally responsible for those other countries and for the European Union as a whole.
	So, as Europe moves into this new century, we have the security of NATO, ever-closer union, the free market, and stability and prosperity the likes of which have never been seen before. We have to decide whether we will do our constitutional duty by debating this ever-closer union in this Chamber, taking into account the views of our new-found barrack-room lawyer friends on both sides of the House.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is still in his place, because he and I have debated many issues. Sometimes we are on the same side of the fence, as on first past the post as opposed to proportional representation, but we found ourselves on different sides on the single currency. I should like to refute a comment that he made earlier. Those who support the single currency have not lost any battle. We regret the fact that a referendum did not take place early in 1997, but it will take place eventually when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has set down the most rigorous conditions for entry and has twice said that we have not met them, agrees that that has happened. The battle is not lost: my hon. Friend and I will meet again on this economic battlefield.

Nigel Evans: It is important that we have a referendum on the single currency. I wish that we had already done so, because the people would have had their say, almost certainly to vote no overwhelmingly. The hon. Gentleman says that this constitutional issue should be debated in this Chamber. That is true, but why not debate it in the country as well? Why does he not trust the people to debate the very serious issue of how we are to be governed in future and let them have a say in a referendum?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I respond by saying that the day must come when the bridge between civil society and political society is cleared of the distortions of the media; then we can have a proper, genuine debate on a whole host of issues. We know full well that those debates cannot be held on equal or neutral terrain.
	Let me make another point to those who claim that a referendum is in the interest of this country. In 1969, when General de Gaulle held a referendum on regional assemblies and reform of the Senate, it was converted into a debate about whether people wanted him to stay in power. It is therefore not sensible to hold a mid-term referendum on such an important issue. I make a distinction between local referendums, which the right hon. Member for Wells mentioned, and a national matter, which falls back to the Chamber. We are elected; we have a mandate. The people—our constituents—expect us to do their work for them and make a decision in the interests of our country.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House's conducting of a debate through the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe is exemplary, and that a similar mechanism is needed to discuss the draft treaty and then the treaty?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that the treaty is a constitutional treaty, which will be fully debated. The debate will be long and we may spend many a night rather than many a day here. However, the House is the place in which to hold the debate. We can have knowledge, information and a free flow of ideas, and ultimately the House will decide. At the next election, the country will follow that decision.

Richard Shepherd: Many Labour supporters, especially old Labour supporters, must be distressed to find that, when the glorious day in 1997 was repeated at the subsequent election, they elected a Bourbon Government. "L'état c'est moi"—what I say must go; I do not want to hear the views of others.
	The struggle has been long. It was almost inconceivable in 1970 that we were on the threshold of constructing a new system of government that grants rights beyond the call of the British people. That is what we are considering—who is sovereign. The Labour party struggled to expand the vote because it knew that, through gaining seats and a majority here, it could establish what the law is and shall be. It could set wrongs right and look backwards and forwards. That glorious struggle formed part of our modern constitution. Today, we hear arguments that all that counts for nothing and that the House is sovereign.
	I believe, however, that our modern constitution was declared at the turn of the last century by the new Labour party of the day. It declared that the people were sovereign and that the House was the means whereby that sovereignty was expressed. We send elected representatives here—they are here today and gone tomorrow. We may change them and by changing them, we change our law: the law that can send us to prison and the law that can make us free. Through that law and this institution, we protect and preserve our liberty. This place is about that essential trust.
	Yet the Government say that they can redesign the constitution because they understand its essential vulnerability. It is not entrenched and no constitutional court secures it. That is why we have witnessed the mashing of the conventions that made our constitution work. The brave, new, Bourbon Labour Government say that they will sweep away the principle that no Parliament may bind its successor. In the past 30 years, the people of Britain have understood but a glimmer of that. The process of European integration and the new judicial and legal system have never received the direct attestation and consent of the people who sent us here. That is the heart of the matter. The sovereignty of Parliament is the sovereignty of the people. And when Labour Members are asked by their constituents, "Why don't you change the law to prevent the export of live horse meat to the continent?", the brave new Bourbon Labour Government say, "Oh no, it's not for us. We've given that power away." By what authority have they done so? By the transient authority of a temporary Government that in time will give way to another Government, which in time will give way to another Government.
	The continuing constitutional necessity of this country is to ensure that the people are sovereign. The denial of the proposition that the people may make a judgment on any of the Acts that have removed power from their Government and the jurisdiction of their courts is wholly to be opposed. We will fight, and there are millions out there who are no longer prepared to tolerate the nonsense that goes on under the protestations of these Bourbons, who say, "It is a matter for us, but once we have cast our view, we want it to be immutable." Nothing in this world is immutable.

Mark Hendrick: Is the hon. Gentleman making a case for no trans-national legislation whatever? If so, can he tell the House how pollution can be persuaded to stay within national borders, or, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) put it, how fish can be persuaded on which side of a line in the sea to stay?

Richard Shepherd: This Bourbon must return to his constituency and assure those poor, benighted people whom he represents why their views do not matter.
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) went to the heart of this debate with a question about the national health service, to which the Foreign Secretary replied that there would be a constitutional crisis. That is what we are reduced to—the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, having allegedly read the treaty, saying, "In the event that they do something that goes to the heart of what we stand for, we will have a constitutional crisis." It is not good enough.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important speech. Does he agree that the Foreign Secretary's argument that because a few powers were given away under a previous treaty it is all right to give all the rest away under this constitution is a falsehood? Is that not analogous to my ordering a pint of beer, drinking a quarter of it, and the Foreign Secretary coming along, drinking the rest, and saying, "It serves you right, because you wanted the glass empty"? That is what this Government are doing to our pint of beer.

Richard Shepherd: I am lifted by my right hon. Friend's contribution.
	Let us consider the sophistry of the Bourbon Front Bench which purports to represent the national interest no less but will not allow anyone else to look over their shoulder to say, "We do not want this," or "We do want that." The concept that the Government set themselves—the test that was high—was that a Government in their maturity seek the consent of the people, not merely their acquiescence. This dire Government are satisfied at best with acquiescence and never go for consent.
	The expression of consent on this measure, as has been pointed out by the Liberal Democrats, does much more for the body politic than this stonewalling. It would lend dignity to the Government if they would accept the proposition that these matters are profound, and that the constituents whom we temporarily represent cannot lose their inalienable right to determine who shall govern this country.

Richard Spring: On 1 May, the whole House will celebrate the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 member states, a process ratified unanimously in this place. This enlargement process, however, could have been achieved by a simple accession treaty, which everybody in the House would have supported. Instead, this wonderful historic moment on 1 May will be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the proposed constitution, with all its attendant baggage, which has nothing whatever to do with the enlargement, as the Prime Minister has in effect conceded.
	The Laeken summit called for the simplification of EU treaties, for more openness and transparency, and for an attempt to reconnect the peoples of Europe with EU institutions. At the time, stirring speeches identifying the need to address the democratic deficit were made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the then Minister for Europe. Yet—here I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—no one in their wildest imaginings would believe that simplification, openness, transparency and reconnection characterised the constitutional package that is likely to be agreed in 12 weeks' time; quite the reverse.
	This constitution was idiotically described by the former Europe Minister as a tidying-up exercise, and even more absurdly described as a constitution no more important than a golf club's, which would fit into a jacket pocket. Those were the words of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, the constitution is riven with contradiction and ambiguity—a veritable beanfeast for lawyers. In no way does it give the people of Europe any more control over EU institutions, or any enhanced level of accountability.
	Tellingly, most of the constitution was opposed at different stages by the British Government, but then meekly accepted. Virtually nothing in the constitutional package bears the stamp of British influence; but what is most shameful is—once again—the truly terrible lack of leadership by Britain in the European Union. Britain has always been carried along in the slipstream of others, always—in this respect—wrongly and pathetically trying to secure influence by giving in on the constitution itself, the charter of fundamental rights, the single legal entity, the new Foreign Minister and the diplomatic service.
	What is the result? Ten years ago, 72 per cent. of EU citizens saw their country's membership as a good thing. Today, less than half of them do. In Britain, only 29 per cent. do. The dangerous disillusionment grows, and by no stretch of the imagination will this constitution deal with it.
	The key question is simply this: why do we need a constitution? It is a question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and I have posed both in the House and to so many of our European partners, but we have never received a satisfactory answer. The constitution has nothing to do with enlargement, it does not increase accessibility, and its hundreds of pages are the reverse of simplicity.
	The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that there is no real and universal enthusiasm for this constitution. The technical elements for enlargement were agreed at Nice. Everyone agrees that, in essence, that could be enough. Everyone knows that the gulf between the elites of Europe and the people is growing, and that turnouts will no doubt be down again in the European elections. So why do the Government not speak out against a constitution to which they were originally opposed? It is like the emperor's new clothes. If the Government could just once in our relationship with the EU—even at this stage—say no, others would be only too pleased to agree.
	Why do the Government not do that? They lack the principled courage that would enable them to do it. That is entirely characteristic of a Government whose failure to show leadership ill serves the British people, and who have not managed to secure the return of a single power either to this Parliament or to the people of this country since they came to office.

Mark Prisk: The Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the balance of the relationship between member states and Brussels. He never once chose to mention the relationship between the governed and the governing—the citizen and the state. Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about that?

Richard Spring: I entirely agree. That is at the heart of the Government's attitude to the British people on this key matter.
	Let me say this to the Minister. As we have seen in other countries, influence in the EU arises because member states pursue and protect their national interests vigorously and with determination. This constitution could have been strangled at birth if the British Government had insisted.
	The devil is in the detail. We know from the ambiguity that surrounds the text that the unwelcome EU jurisprudence will spread in our national life. We need only read the House of Lords European Union Committee report on the future role of the European Court of Justice to see that. It envisages a considerable extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice, which will become the new constitutional court and the new supreme court for the Union. It is the self-same European Court that has repeatedly forced forward an integrationist agenda.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend share my understanding that most Government areas become shared with the EU, and that "shared" means that it tells us what to do?

Richard Spring: Exactly, a shared competence is one that has evolved from the European Union. It was notable in an earlier debate that the Foreign Secretary did not even know the definition of a shared competence. It is typical of Ministers to diminish themselves in the eyes of their European counterparts by interpreting EU decisions here in a way that would be laughed out of court everywhere else.
	The truth of the matter is that six EU countries will be having referendums— and quite possibly the Czech Republic and Poland, too. Others may follow. I challenge the Government to let us have a proper, open and transparent debate and to let the nation hear us argue our corners. The way to achieve that is through a referendum campaign. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who said that being in favour of a referendum does not mean being in favour of withdrawal. The Government's suggestion that it does is entirely incorrect.
	When the Foreign Secretary was Home Secretary in 1998, he spoke about an electoral system for elections to Westminster. He said:
	"Confidence in our political system has been significantly eroded in recent years. Our challenge is to restore confidence in our democracy, to bring decision-making closer to those who are affected by decisions, and to restore trust in the way in which we are governed. That is why we have embarked on a major programme of change."
	He also said:
	"Voters, not politicians, should have the final say . . . Whether there is change or no change, the referendum will provide the popular legitimacy that is essential for our working democracy. It is the British people's right to have that say, and our responsibility to provide it."—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 190–01.]
	That was what our Foreign Secretary said in this Chamber when he was Home Secretary in 1998.
	Some will be in favour of the constitutional package before us, and I respect their democratic right of opinion, but we take a different view. What unites so many across the party political divide is a clear recognition that this is of constitutional significance. If the good burghers of Hartlepool are allowed a referendum, so should be the voters of the United Kingdom. In that regard, it might be of interest to hear what the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in a speech in Berlin in March 1998:
	"It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming slowly to an end. Today, people want to be more involved. Tony Blair's Government has already held two referendums and three more are at some stage in prospect, not to mention more citizens' movements . . . Democracy and legitimacy need constant renewal. They need to be redefined with each generation . . . This requires a different style of politics";
	and he went on to talk about the necessity of involvement via the internet and referendums. He continued:
	"People have no time for a style of government that talks down to them and takes them for granted."
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The Government have sponsored dozens of referendums to legitimise change since 1997, but when we are confronted with the first written constitution in our history, suddenly every excuse is offered. Interestingly enough, Nigel Smith, who successfully led the yes campaign for Scottish devolution, recently described the same issue as follows:
	"Consciously or unconsciously, through the use of referendums Tony Blair has completely changed the constitutional landscape in this country. Up until this point, whenever it has contemplated a constitutional change—nationally, regionally or even locally—this Government has rightly sought the specific endorsement of the people affected in a referendum. It is therefore deeply worrying to observe the inconsistency with which Ministers have approached the question of the proposed EU Constitution. This has naturally changed the expectations of the voters.
	For those of us who believe in referendums, the draft Constitution—whenever it comes—presents a classic case for initiating a national debate, followed by a binding vote for the people, all the people."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) talked about the sovereignty of Parliament and of the people of this country; such sovereignty is at the heart of the democratic process. To deny that this step is of constitutional significance is entirely wrong, and simply widens the gulf that exists between the people of this country and government. Frankly, what is good enough for the people of Ireland, Portugal, the Netherlands and many other countries is certainly good enough for us. Our people are becoming increasingly alienated from the political process and we cannot afford to alienate them further. I invite the Government to think again and to do what is absolutely right: to give the people of this country a choice on a vital matter that affects our future.

Denis MacShane: We have had an enjoyable debate, even if some of it has consisted of a re-run of speeches that we have heard for some time. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said that Ministers should make the case for Europe. I try to do my modest best—probably not with sufficient success—but I wish that he, too, would occasionally make the case for Europe, instead of constantly making the Daily Mail case for a referendum. Yet again—I address my remarks specifically to him—we have had an essay on form, not substance. I want to talk about the important issues that Europe faces, and the important need to secure a constitutional treaty that brings together the elements of the existing constitution.
	Of course, we do indeed already have a constitution for Europe. It can be found in the existing treaties, and it talks about ever-closer union—a phrase that will be removed under the proposed draft.
	In my view, that constitution gives excessive power to the President of the Commission. The proposed draft will counterbalance that power with a new authority for the nation states of Europe, which are united through their Council of Ministers and their new standing chairman. My one small contribution to British diplomatic parlance was to persuade my Foreign Office colleagues to start describing that gentleman as the "standing chair" of the Council. In some other European languages, the word is the same as "President"; however, that term clarifies the situation.

NOTHING

NOTHING

John Redwood: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Denis MacShane: To whom shall I give way? Let us have age before future.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister. We have had no referendum on the euro because the Government know that they would lose, and we have not been offered a referendum on the constitution because they know they would be slaughtered. Trade unionists and Labour voters, as well as Conservatives, would love to vote this disgraceful treaty down.

Denis MacShane: As a rugby union fan, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we would win. I shall come to the important question of why the gravediggers of parliamentary democracy, many of whom we have heard from today, should not get their way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has always taken a consistent position on Europe. He opposes the euro.

Ian Davidson: indicated assent.

Denis MacShane: He opposes European defence procedures.

Ian Davidson: indicated dissent.

Denis MacShane: I am not quite sure where he stands on other issues. He invited me to park the question of the constitution, but as a Minister it is not my job to park anything. I want to see a functioning and effective Europe.
	The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—

Ian Davidson: rose—

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend gave way to me, so I must reciprocate.

Ian Davidson: I have always made it absolutely clear that I was not opposed to the euro in all circumstances, but that now and in the immediately foreseeable future it would be economically illiterate for us to join. I am not opposed to European defence; indeed, in that regard I am more European than the Government. I also took the European view on Iraq, so I do not accept for a moment the Minister's suggestion that I am anti-European.

Denis MacShane: The majority of EU member states were in favour of intervention in Iraq. It is a debate that we perhaps need to have at another time.
	The right hon. Member for Wells made his traditional passionate attack on Europe, but I have to put myself at times in the place of citizens elsewhere in the world. The notion that somehow the French and German constitutions would be abolished by this new European superstate simply is not an argument that can be advanced. Poland and Hungary believe that their sovereignty has been enhanced by joining the EU, even if the right hon. Member for Wells went and campaigned in Poland to stop the Poles from voting yes to joining Europe. The right hon. Gentleman was honest. He was not arguing for a referendum as a point of principle about how we would consult the British people. He wants a referendum campaign to say no. Other hon. Members who intervened in the debate, even if they did not make speeches, have taken consistent positions of relenting hostility to our membership of the European Union.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), on the contrary, spoke in favour of Britain staying in Europe. He made a speech that I do not have time to make this evening. All our recent debates have been focused on form and the question of the constitution, not on the substance—what we need to do to make Europe a success and ensure that Britain works effectively in our national interest within the European Union.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the shortest speech of the debate and for that reason a very effective one, if I may say so. I think that he spoke passionately—I hope that I do him no disservice in saying that—in favour of Britain leaving the EU. He talked about the Bourbons incessantly. I thought that the definition of a Bourbon king was not "L'état c'est moi"—that was a bit ahead of their time—but those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. I gently put to the hon. Gentleman as a passionate parliamentarian that that is very much the position of his Front-Bench team today. My party took the same point of view almost exactly 20 years ago. We have learned from that experience. I gently suggest that if the Conservative party wants to be taken seriously as a party of government, it too has to start learning the truth that it would be a disaster for the British people to continue this ranting against membership of the European Union.

William Cash: The Minister refers to the national interest. How does he equate the national interest with undermining the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, and does he not agree that the House of Lords report to which I have referred, which I am sure he has read, clearly states that there is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between member states and the EU in respect of the matter of competence and many other matters that go with it.

Denis MacShane: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to make a slight diversion from my speech and refer to the conclusions of the excellent House of Lords European Union Committee, which have just been published. In paragraph 157 it says:
	"We welcome the fact that Article I-10(1) makes clear that primacy only applies to the Constitution and to Union law that has been adopted in the exercise of competences assigned to the Union's institutions."
	In other words, the European Court of Justice is exactly the court that defines what the EU does.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Paragraph 161 states clearly—

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister—inadvertently, I am sure—is misleading the House. He quoted paragraph 157 of the report. It clearly goes on to say:
	"There remains some uncertainty as to the scope of application of the principle."
	In paragraph 158, it says:
	"More clarity is needed to address these two concerns".

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be a matter of debate.

Denis MacShane: I am happy to take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but paragraph 161 says:
	"The draft Treaty reaffirms and strengthens the position of the national courts".
	We could have a debate about what is in the constitutional treaty. I argue that the authority of the national institutions of Europe—those that the people of Poland and the Czech Republic have so bravely won in recent years—is upheld under the terms of this draft treaty. But we are not allowed to have that discussion. Instead we are having a discussion about whether to have a referendum.
	I am a defender of the House of Commons. I was elected 10 years ago and I love this place. It has been good to me and I cannot think of any greater honour for any citizen of this country, especially one such as me, whose parents did not come from here, than to sit in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is extraordinary to me that it is proposed that this House should tonight casually throw away its supreme duty to be the guardian of the interests of the British people and surrender itself to the populist plebiscites of the Rothermere press.
	The Liberal Democrats' position is even odder. I can understand why the Conservatives, with their obsessive dislike of Europe, want to command headlines in the anti-European press. But I do not understand why the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Nationalists and the Ulster Unionists also wish to join the tribe of monkeys on the organs of the Rothermere press. Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrat party is composed of two halves. We know where the Liberals came from, but the other half was a breakaway from the Labour party on the exact issue of the incessant clamour for a referendum to take us out of Europe in the early 1980s. I know from conversations with Liberal Democrat MEPs and Members in the other place that they are distressed that the party has given new lustre to the opportunism of the main Opposition party in supporting this incessant clamour for a plebiscite.
	I am a great fan of Edmund Burke, who argued that Britain should be governed by people with "long views". When the Conservative party was led by Churchill, Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher—in her early days—there were times when it took the long view that it was in Britain's vital interest to be in Europe and to help to run Europe. Today, the Conservatives' idea of Burke's long view is anything that fits into a Daily Mail headline.
	Burke also liked Parliament because it was where we, the elected representatives, could express our views freely
	"even though against a predominant and fashionable opinion."
	I know that the predominant and fashionable opinion in London in much of the press is hostile to Europe. I am happy to nail my colours to this Dispatch Box and say that I am passionately pro-European, and I invite all hon. Members who believe that our country's interests can never lie in adopting the isolationist policies of the Opposition to vote against the motion this evening.
	I also agree with Bagehot when he wrote that
	"the distinguishing quality of Parliamentary government is, that in each stage of a public transaction there is discussion: that the public assists at this discussion; that it can, through Parliament, turn out an administration which is not doing as it likes, and can put in an administration which will do as it likes."
	I invite the Opposition to remain anti-European, to continue to speak against active and involved membership of the European Union and to deny the necessity for making the Union of 25 work by supporting a new rule book in this new constitutional treaty, which will take us forward. The longer the Conservatives remain anti-European, the longer they will stay in opposition.
	Over the years, this nation has signed solemn treaties such as the ones joining the World Trade Organisation, which removed powers from this House over commerce, and NATO, which removed powers from this House over defence policy. We have shared sovereignty to grow and add value to what we do. The European Union is part of that process.
	I invite the House tonight to uphold parliamentary democracy. I invite the House to say yes to Europe. I invite the House to reject the anti-European and anti-parliamentary nonsense of the Conservative party.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 328.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 202.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the intensified scrutiny of both Houses in respect of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes that the Government's policy of active engagement within the EU is in Britain's national interests; supports its constructive approach to discussions within the Intergovernmental Conference to ensure that an enlarged Union works effectively; endorses paragraph 66 of the White Paper (Cm 5934) in respect of issues which must remain the province of the nation state; notes that provided there is a satisfactory outcome on these and other matters of concern, the proposals currently being discussed would not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union and therefore does not believe there is reason to depart from previous practice for constitutional treaties; and reaffirms the primacy of Parliament to decide on whether any future Constitutional Treaty should become part of UK law.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Peter Hain relating to Sittings of the House and consideration of any Lords Message that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Paul Clark.]

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, considered, pursuant to Order [8 March].
	Clause 1

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That this House insists in its disagreement to Lords amendment 1F to Commons amendment 1C, but proposes an amendment in lieu thereof.
	The House of Commons continues to believe that four regions must be included in the Bill, and that these regions should be the north-east, the east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-west. Earlier this afternoon, the House of Lords voted by a narrow margin to yet again prevent convenient all-postal voting in the north-west of England. Their Lordships voted by only 136 to 130 votes to drop the north-west from the proposals put by the Government and the House of Commons.
	It is worth noting that the majority of Cross-Bench peers voting this afternoon voted with the Government against the peculiar alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Interestingly, there is a majority among life peers in favour of keeping the north-west in a list of four regions. The Government were defeated on that occasion by the votes of the hereditary peers.
	Let us not forget that the House of Commons has voted for four regions on four separate occasions already—on 8 March, 16 March, 24 March and yesterday, 29 March. Four times the House has expressed its view. There is no doubt about the decision by elected Members of Parliament.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister continues to speak of the House of Commons, without recognising the fact that he is speaking about only his own party. As I have pointed out to him, independent commentators have said that important matters concerning elections, such as this, should be agreed between the parties. The Government should not involve the other place in a battle when there is no all-party consensus on what they are trying to ram through.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different understanding of our democracy if he thinks that we should have unanimity among all parties on all matters. The House of Commons makes its decisions on the basis of the majority of votes. We are accountable to our constituents for the decisions that we make, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The House of Lords has powers to revise and amend, which it often uses with authority and experience. On the Bill, we have listened to many of the Lords' concerns. We have conceded, for example, on the declaration of identity, which some of my hon. Friends will remember. We have allowed that provision to be in the Bill, so it is not the case that we have been unwilling to listen or to revise the Bill. The time has come for the House of Commons to make sure that it can assert its view, and we have decided to ensure that all four regions have the opportunity of all-postal voting in June.

Gerald Kaufman: Is it not peculiar that the Conservative party is enunciating a new doctrine, whereby the will of the House of Commons should not prevail if only the government party emphasises that will? In view of the fact that the Conservative party railroaded the Single European Act through on a guillotine and the poll tax through with only its support, when did that new constitutional doctrine arise? The Conservative spokesman who advocates the new doctrine may want to go to the House of Lords pretty soon himself.

Christopher Leslie: It would be somewhat cruel to exacerbate the Conservative spokesman's difficulties on the latter point, but it is odd that the Conservative party has scraped the barrel to the extent that it is resorting to requesting unanimity on such issues. The Conservative spokesman feels that that is the way to proceed, but the majority of elected hon. Members in this House disagree with him, and quite right too.

Angela Eagle: In a previous debate in which the democratic House was attempting to have a democratic say on how we run our democracy, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to speculate on why both main Opposition parties seem hellbent on making it as inconvenient as possible to vote. Has he had a chance during the intervening period to speculate further on why we are experiencing such resistance from those who may be afraid of high turnouts?

Christopher Leslie: The fear of high turnouts may well be a reason for the resistance. The alliance between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats is peculiar. The phrase "liberal democracy" rings hollow when one thinks that the Liberal Democrats are happy to use and abuse the powers of the other place. Although the Liberal Democrat party is a minority party in this House, it wants to abuse the majority power in the other place to thwart the view of the democratically elected majority in this place.

Peter Pike: If one examines the Chamber this evening, the majority of Labour Members represent constituencies in the north-west, whereas few, if any, Opposition Members who represent constituencies in the north-west are present. We want to maximise turnout in the election to enable as many people as possible to vote, and we therefore support the inclusion of the north-west in the pilots.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right, and he knows that he is accountable to his constituents for the decisions that he takes. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is one of the few remaining north-west Opposition Members on the Back Benches, and he may speak for the Conservatives in the north-west, but I hope that he recognises that we are entering uncharted constitutional waters.
	Today, the exchanges between both Houses have matched the current record for disagreements, and if peers in the other place were to resist the fifth decision by the Commons, they would overturn the will of the elected House in a completely unprecedented way, taking our constitution into uncharted waters in a manner not seen since detailed records began after the second world war. Can the hon. Gentleman justify the other place's abuse of its powers?

George Osborne: The Minister says that 130 peers supported the Government in the vote in the House of Lords. Can he tell me how many Labour peers and how many Cross-Bench peers are in the House of Lords? If this is uncharted constitutional territory, the least the Labour Whips in the Lords could do is get their troops out.

Christopher Leslie: An awful lot of Conservative peers did not vote in the Division in the other place. It is interesting that the vote is becoming closer and closer as they realise that their argument for overturning this House of Commons becomes weaker and weaker. The time has now come for the other place and Opposition Members to recognise that they have tested the boundaries of revision and amendment to their limits. Their activities are becoming obstructive and vexatious. I hope that the House will now recognise that the issues are immensely simple. This is a matter of judgment as to which regions we pick to pilot all-postal voting in the June elections. We feel, and this House of Commons believes, that four regions are best.

Lady Hermon: May I make a suggestion to the Minister that is genuinely intended to be helpful? Vote stealing is a very serious offence from which we in Northern Ireland have suffered for generations. To their credit, this Government introduced the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, a wonderful piece of legislation that was taken through, to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, by the Minister for Work, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). That Act included specific identifiers to eradicate fraud in relation to postal voting. Will the Minister take it away—I will give him my copy—to see whether he can engage in some joined-up thinking with the Northern Ireland Office to reassure those of us who are genuinely concerned about postal voting giving rise to fraud that the identifiers that were used so successfully in Northern Ireland could be used in the north of England?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Lady makes a constructive offer: I will certainly take her copy from her after the debate. We have already made several changes to the Bill to improve our ability to counter fraud and malpractice. Our amendment not only reasserts that four regions are best, but helps to bolster still further the anti-fraud measures in the Bill by specifying that the declaration of identity accompanying the ballot paper must advise the voter that the ballot paper should be completed outside the presence of any other person, or, in the case of voters who require assistance—for example, those with visual impairment—only in accordance with the advice that we will provide to returning officers. Yet again, the amendment improves anti-fraud measures. It underlines our determination to combat malpractice, reiterates our belief in the secrecy of the private act of casting a vote, and supplements the myriad anti-fraud measures that we have already put in place.

Dave Watts: This has nothing to do with fraud, as we have been given no evidence whatsoever that fraud will increase as a result of postal voting, nor any details of prosecutions arising from the alleged fraud that we are told about. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more to do with saving the skins of Liverpool Liberal Democrat councillors than the democratic process?

Christopher Leslie: I cannot fathom why the Opposition parties have joined together in this strange way—we can only speculate on their motives. I now feel very strongly that all-postal voting is no more prone to fraudulence than conventional voting. We have been given no evidence for that—for example, a record of more convictions having occurred under all-postal voting in the pilots that have taken place than occurred under the conventional arrangements. Opposition Members have been grasping at straws to find reasons to oppose making voting more convenient. We want to make voting easier because we know that there are difficulties with turnout, particularly in local and European elections, and we are simply proposing that we find a way to ensure that we improve engagement in our democratic process. That is why we picked the four regions.

Gerald Kaufman: I am sorry to disturb my hon. Friend again. One can completely respect the views advanced by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). However, although the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats talk about the potential for fraud, the Lords reasons say nothing whatever about it. What is more, the Lords reasons changed all the time. When the provision was sent back to us two weeks ago, the Lords reason for rejecting it was
	"Because is appropriate to make provision for no more than two pilot regions, as recommended by the Electoral Commission."
	However, their reason for doing so today is
	"Because it is appropriate to pilot postal voting in three rather than four regions."
	The House of Lords is equalling the Liberal Democrats' hypocrisy—that is a massive achievement.

Christopher Leslie: As usual, my right hon. Friend has his eye on the detail. He is right that fraud did not appear in the reasons on this occasion. We have been reasonable with the other place and responded to their worries about fraud and malpractice. We have bent over backwards to make changes to the Bill, including the concession that has disappointed many of my hon. Friends. They are disappointed about the inclusion of the declaration of identity to be a witness to the signature. The Electoral Commission advised that we should move towards a single signature arrangement. However, we made the concession, which proves that we have tried our best to listen to some of the more reasonable objections from the other place.

Nick Hawkins: rose—

Christopher Leslie: The partisan decision of Opposition parties to persist with preventing the House of Commons from having its way is ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman's words will probably prove that.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister suggests that there is no evidence of a risk of fraud. However, he has often been reminded by me and other hon. Members of the Electoral Reform Society's views about the Bill. It has repeatedly said to all hon. Members who are involved that the risk of large-scale fraud now exists for the first time in more than 100 years.
	Since we are considering clarity, will the Minister respond to the challenge that I have issued three times to the Government to publish all the letters that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers sent to the Electoral Commission? We have seen the Electoral Commission's letters but we have not seen the Deputy Prime Minister's threatening letters. Will the Minister publish them?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman will find letters from the Government to the Electoral Commission in the Library. I am sure that he will be delighted to read them. He is grasping at straws because he simply cites the views of others rather than producing hard evidence of malpractice. Has he offered the House details of prosecutions and convictions? Where is the hard evidence? He has anecdote, hearsay and allegations but no evidence that all-postal voting is any more prone to fraudulence than conventional arrangements. We have dealt firmly and completely with the argument about fraud.
	The arguments are now focusing on what the public prefer. They want the opportunity for all-postal voting. They clearly expressed that by voting in greater numbers in places where we piloted the scheme in local elections. We have the resources for four regions to do that. We know that the regional returning officers desperately want all-postal voting and that they want a decision to be made now. They would face a considerable challenge if the Conservative and Liberal Democrat alliance forced them to go back on their preparations, find the polling stations in the new ward boundaries that the boundary changes have created and recruit the staff to conduct the elections. It would be a considerable challenge if the north-west were forced to revert to a conventional arrangement. I hope that Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members will reconsider and reflect on the fact that the House—reasonably but determinedly—wants to ensure that four regions are included in the Bill.
	Important principles are at stake. Of course, there is a wider question about the elected House of Commons making decisions. However, it is also important that, having thoroughly examined all the aspects of the Bill and made concessions when necessary, we have the opportunity to take forward the decision that the provision for four regions is right. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is time to settle the matter.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Leslie: No, it is now time to make a decision and insist on our disagreement with the Lords amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister still does not recognise the fatal weakness in the Government's case, which is that as recently as 16 December, on this same Bill, the Government said not once or twice but many times that they only intended there to be three pilot regions. As we know, the Electoral Commission originally recommended only two. The Government said that they intended to bring forward plans for a third, and they said it not once but many times. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, only five days after this Minister said that he intended to bring forward plans for a third region, they announced that they wanted there to be four. They wanted the whole of England north of the Trent to be chosen, and, for their partisan party political reasons, all of the areas that face referendums later on regional government. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister has been so obsessed by this matter.
	The Government have had the benefit of the advice of their Electoral Commission—they set it up. As my noble Friend Baroness Hanham said:
	"The Opposition did not set up the Electoral Commission—the Government did. They had a long report from it, part of which said that it thought that it would be suitable for two European electoral regions to be part of the electoral pilot".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 856.]
	We have had this debate many times. This is about round eight of the contest. One thing has changed, which is that the Government are finding it difficult to get their own peers out to support their policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, with the decreased majority in the other place, had the Government managed to get all the Labour peers to vote earlier, the result might have been different. I understand that it is difficult for the Government to get their own peers to support much of their policy, not just on this Bill but on many other matters. If the Government's problem is not so much the battle between the two Houses but their whipping in the other place, that really is serious.

Dave Watts: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Opposition's position is on this issue? He seems to be saying that the Electoral Commission should decide which election system should be used in each election. If that is the case, he seems to be overriding the responsibility of the House of Commons to make the final decision. Can he clarify why he believes that it is acceptable to run a pilot in the north-west for regional government, but it is not acceptable to use it for the European Parliament and local elections?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is making the same sort of mistake that the Minister made a few moments ago. He is talking about the Electoral Commission's recommendations as if the Electoral Commission had not given compelling reasons in its report, repeated by the chairman of the Electoral Commission as recently as in his letter of 24 March, as to why its concerns about the north-west remain strong. The Government set up the Electoral Commission. They are saying in terms, several times, as we debated last night, that their views about the north-west have not changed.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is again repeating something that is not in the Electoral Commission's report, as he and other Opposition Members did yesterday. Let me quote to him the executive summary of the Electoral Commission's report on this issue—[Interruption.] He should just listen to this:
	"We believe that there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme."
	Where in that quote does the commission rule out an all-postal pilot in the north-west?

Nick Hawkins: May I quote again to the hon. Gentleman, as I did yesterday, —he obviously was not listening—the letter from the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr. Sam Younger:
	"The considerations as set out in our December report regarding the north-west have not changed. For the reasons set out in my letter of 4 March, we are not persuaded of the merits of piloting in four regions."
	All that the other place is doing is sticking to what the Electoral Commission says—turning down the north-west, and keeping to three regions, not four.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is not standing up tonight to say that he wants to stick to what the Electoral Commission recommended, according to his version of what it recommended. That was the position two weeks ago, but the House of Lords has sent back this amendment saying that it is appropriate to have three tests. How can he shift now? Well, I know how—it is because that argument has been snatched away from him, just as his seat is about to be snatched away from him.

Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been following every stage of the procedure. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, the Bill has been amended since the earlier stage.
	We have sought, in another place, to be reasonable with the Government. We have offered them what the right hon. Gentleman's own Minister was putting forward as recently as 16 December in debates on the Bill. At that time the Government were saying—not once, not twice, but many times—that they wanted three regions. It is the right hon. Gentleman's party that has changed its preference from three regions to four, and that is one of the reasons why the other place is so determined to stick to its view.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman and I have sat through debates on the Bill on a number of occasions. On each occasion, he has made great play of allegations of fraud in the north-west. I told him yesterday that Lancashire constabulary had said there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the very elections to which he had alluded. In fact one allegation of fraud is outstanding in the north-west—against a Liberal Democrat in a traditional ballot. Where now is the hon. Gentleman's argument against an all-postal ballot in the north-west?

Nick Hawkins: As I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, if he wants evidence he need only read the speeches of Lord Greaves, an expert on elections. His views are set out in great detail.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Hawkins: But an even stronger point is that, having expressed its fears, the Electoral Commission—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members seeking to intervene must not remain standing for any length of time if the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way.

Nick Hawkins: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I was responding to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). The Electoral Commission expressed its fear that any allegations that might be proceeded with might coincide with the elections. As recently as 23 March, the commission has said that those considerations have not changed. The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with its judgment; all I am saying is that I do.

Andrew Miller: As the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, he should perhaps reflect on what he has said. He suggested that speeches by Lord Greaves constituted evidence. How on earth can that be so?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may not agree with Lord Greaves, who represents a different party in another place. I have simply said that I have read the noble Lord's speeches, and they strike me as a pretty compelling argument. The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with them does not mean that his judgment is any better than the noble Lord's.

Nicholas Winterton: I have listened to the debate, and while there are good and sound arguments on both sides, does my hon. Friend not think that it is the action of a knave to deride opinions held sincerely by people who disagree with those arguments? Some Conservative Members who have fought many elections believe that merely making voting more convenient is not the way to generate a greater and more genuine interest in politics. Does my hon. Friend not agree that a more genuine interest in politics is very much part of this argument?

Nick Hawkins: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. What I particularly object to is the attitude of Labour Members who, if they do not agree with an argument, seek to deride it rather than listening to it and considering it in a mature way.

George Howarth: If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said, there are no outstanding cases of electoral fraud in the north-west as a result of postal ballots, and if the hon. Gentleman now accepts—as I assume he does—that three pilots would be acceptable, what possible objection can he have to a fourth?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman, who used to be a Minister, knows that his Government set up this Electoral Commission, and it has not changed its mind. However well I may get on with the hon. Member for Leigh, I will not necessarily prefer his opinion to that of the Electoral Commission, on the north-west or anything else. We must be guided by the experts in the Electoral Commission that the Government set up. We are not going to make much progress if Government Back Benchers want only to deride other opinions. I take the view that the other place is absolutely right to stick to its guns, and I hope that it continues to do so. We welcome the fact that the Government have made another small concession towards greater security of the poll, but we are certain that we are right to stick to three electoral regions. I hope that the other place also continues to do so.

Andrew Bennett: It is sad that we have gone back to having a slanging match, when what is needed is some cool thought and cool persuasion of the House of Lords to act sensibly in this matter.
	We have now reached a position whereby returning officers in the north-west region will face almost impossible difficulties. In the past, most of them have been able to organise general elections efficiently with relatively short notice, and I am sure that they have been preparing since Christmas for an all-postal ballot. Both of those tasks can be managed perfectly efficiently.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Andrew Bennett: Let me develop my argument a little further.
	Unfortunately, if the Lords hold to their proposals, we are now going to have a hybrid. Everyone has the chance to go to a polling station, but many people in the north-west will be annoyed that the House of Lords has thwarted their opportunity to have a postal ballot automatically. What will they then do? They will apply, as they have every right to do, for a postal vote over the next six or seven weeks. Instead of most people going to the polling station and just 3 or 4 per cent. voting by post, anything up to 25 or 30 per cent. of people will apply for postal votes. That will produce circumstances that are extremely difficult for returning officers to cope with. All the polling stations have to be in place, but so will most of the postal mechanisms, producing the worst of all worlds.
	Conservative Members say that they are concerned about fraud. There may have been some fraud with postal votes, but the fraud has been in the traditional, not the experimental areas, and has affected a relatively small number of votes. It might have been better to take earlier action to reduce the possibility of such fraud. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, steps were taken in Northern Ireland to achieve that, but it is not an option at this particular moment. My plea to the House of Lords is to make certain that we can have an all-postal ballot, which can be supervised as efficiently as any other system to reduce fraud.
	As it stands now, people can apply for a postal vote to be sent to any named address. That makes it possible for people to collect such votes, which they should not be doing. Under an all-postal vote, however, those votes go to the address on the electoral register, which provides a very important safeguard. In fact, an all-postal ballot makes an election safer and less likely to result in fraud than one in which law-abiding citizens are put to the inconvenience of having to go to the polling station, when those who want to perpetrate fraud or malpractice can get postal votes.
	I repeat my strong plea to the House of Lords closely to examine the current position. If the Lords want to eliminate or reduce fraud, the most effective way of doing so is to have an all-postal ballot in the north-west of England. That is clearly what most of my constituents want, and if the Lords try to deny them that opportunity it will spur many of them to secure postal votes, which will create the worst possible administrative nightmare for electoral registration officers.

David Heath: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), although I would like to do so with slightly less frequency on this subject. I suggested yesterday evening that we were experiencing a version of "Groundhog Day", but I retract that comment because according to my recollection of the film, things eventually got better. Unfortunately, we seem to be making no progress with the Bill whatsoever, due to the Government's intransigence.
	The facts of the case remain exactly as they always were. The Government wish to have pilot schemes—I stress the phrase "pilot schemes"—for all-postal voting, and they have considerable support, certainly from Liberal Democrats, in doing so. They said that they wanted three regions, and felt that that was an appropriate scale for the trial. That is exactly what they have in the Bill, before they amend it this evening. They set up the Electoral Commission some time ago in order to give advice, and they sought its advice on which and how many regions would be suitable. We realise that they were disappointed with the commission's initial response, which was that only two regions could be positively recommended.

Dave Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman intervenes frequently in these debates. I wish that he would actually make a speech—then we could have all the interventions rolled into one. Let us have this evening's intervention.

Dave Watts: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The essence of his argument seems to be that the commission should override the democratic will of this House of Commons. He was quite happy to overrule the commission in respect of countersigning, but he seems less willing to do so when it comes to postal votes. Does that have something to do with the elections for Liberal Democrat-controlled councils in Liverpool?

David Heath: No, it does not. If the hon. Gentleman is going to intervene several times in each of these debates, I wish that he would invent some new interventions. Answering the same one time and again is getting rather tedious.

George Howarth: rose—

David Heath: Some Members would rather that we did not have the independent arbiter of the Electoral Commission, but why do we have it? It is in order to avoid ugly confrontations between the parties on matters on which there should be consensus and agreement. Indeed, that is exactly why we have the boundary commission. Of course, we remember the last Government who tried to overrule the boundary commission—it was Jim Callaghan in 1969 who tried to gerrymander the constituencies. That was a huge mistake, as even Labour party members now accept. What prevented that Government from doing so was the constitutional role of the other place. That is the clear precedent for what is happening today.

George Howarth: rose—

Colin Pickthall: rose—

David Heath: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has intervened many times, but I have not heard from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

Colin Pickthall: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what the Liberal Democrats, in collusion with the other lot, are trying to achieve? In effect, they are trying to reduce the potential turnout in the north-west by half. He understands the electoral arithmetic as well as anybody else. He understands that the British National party is more likely to gain seats on a low turnout than on a high turnout. How would the Liberal Democrats square their conscience if their effort to achieve their aims returned one or two BNP Members of the European Parliament under that voting system? To paraphrase Sir Thomas More, it is one thing to lose one's soul for the whole world, but for Liverpool?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman did come to an end—eventually. I am still—

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I have intervened many times in this debate. For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that I have intervened once.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

David Heath: I was referring the serial debate that we are having on this subject. I shall of course apologise if I am incorrect in saying that the hon. Gentleman has intervened during the previous occasions on which we have debated these matters.

George Howarth: For the sake of accuracy, may I say that I have never intervened in a debate on this matter previously? The hon. Gentleman clearly has made a mistake. I accept that he did not do so with any ill intent.

David Heath: I certainly did not do so and I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman. I sought only to introduce a new face into the proceedings.

George Howarth: rose—

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman now want to intervene substantively?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently suggest that we get on with the debate?

David Heath: Let us return to the genuine issues involved.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: May I just make some progress? I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene later.
	The debate is now simply about whether we should have the three regions that the Minister said were his intention. For 90 per cent. of the proceedings on the Bill, that was exactly what he wanted. He was disappointed when he got only two. Like the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he was apparently unaware of the later advice of the Electoral Commission. It said that Yorkshire and Humberside could be added. My noble Friends tabled an amendment to precisely that effect in another place and that is what is now in the Bill. It was only when the Minister had three regions that he decided to add another to his shopping list.

Mike Hancock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: In a moment.
	The hon. Member for West Lancashire asked me why we were trying to reduce the options for the north-west, but of course we are not. I want a sensible answer from the Government and the Back Benchers who are here this evening—I notice that many of them are from the north-west or Yorkshire and Humberside—to why, if this is so imperative for the north-west, it is not for the south-west. If it is so imperative for the east midlands, why is it not for the west midlands? If it is so imperative for the north of England, why is it not for the south of England, or Scotland or Wales? The Government have failed to answer that question.
	The Government simply say that we have to increase turnout, but only in those regions where we choose to increase turnout. I have said all the way along the line that had the Government come forward with a proposal for universal postal voting across the whole country, I could have understood that. That would have had a logic to it. There is a logic to doing it across the whole country and there is a logic to having pilots. There is not a logic for postal voting in areas that are not recommended by the Electoral Commission; in one half of England, one third of the United Kingdom and not the rest.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman suggested one reason. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) suggested another and entirely different reason for the change. It was a repetition of one suggested by his noble Friend Lord Hoyle in the House of Lords. It is the novel doctrine that if one does not like the anticipated outcome of an election, one changes the system. That is exactly what the hon. Member for West Lancashire suggested.

Colin Pickthall: No.

Andrew Turner: He denies it, but he said that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would have on his conscience a success for the British National party if he did not allow the measure through. I would like to know whether that is the doctrine of the Government or merely the doctrine of a few extraordinary Government Back Benchers.

David Heath: It is another of the spurious arguments that we have had introduced into this debate on a number of occasions. I do not think that it is the Government's official position.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No. The hon. Gentleman has intervened an awful lot in this debate. We have really had enough of the hon. Gentleman on this subject.
	If I had heard any logical explanation for the Government's position, I might have been more persuaded of the validity of it, but the genuine case was more than clearly exhibited earlier. When the Minister was introducing the Government's case, who were sitting on either side of him? We had the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Local and Regional Government and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). They are the ones who are running this show, not the Department for Constitutional Affairs. What an excuse for a Department it is. It cannot make its own decisions or do what it believes is right. It is led by the nose by another Department. What a disgraceful position for the Minister and, even more, for the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who—surprisingly—appears to have no interest in the legislation.

Shona McIsaac: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may think of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local and Regional Government, they are elected Members of this House, unlike the hereditary peers next door—the marquesses and barons—who are overruling the primacy of this House. That is all that this argument is about.

David Heath: If one does not like the unelected House of Lords, one should do something about it. One should not shilly-shally because one is afraid of what the Prime Minister will say. One should not ignore the views of one's Back Benchers because one is not convinced that one can get it through the other place. One should legislate. Until the hon. Lady is prepared to persuade her right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that it is time that we had a proper, democratic House of Lords, she has no reason to argue anything else.
	The hon. Lady talks about primacy. In this instance, she is talking not about the primacy of the House of Commons, but the primacy of the Labour party. It does not like it when an argument is made against it.

Paul Tyler: Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is the Deputy Prime Minister who has resisted all attempts in Cabinet to introduce an elected second Chamber?

David Heath: Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister is the guilty man. His attempts at bullying on the issue are well documented. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was wrong to say that the letter to the Electoral Commission had not been put in the Library: it was there on Thursday. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman has a copy now.
	The most remarkable aspect of the debate is that the Bill was introduced in the last Session because it was so urgent that it needed to be in place by the beginning of the year.

Shona McIsaac: It was blocked.

David Heath: It was not blocked. The Government did nothing with it. I have the chronology of events in my hand. The Bill was introduced into this House on 17 September, but it was months before it was even debated in the other place. We are now told that the returning officers are in a terrible position, but that is because of the Government's actions—[Interruption.] What did the Deputy Prime Minister write to the chairman of the Electoral Commission—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have fewer interventions from sedentary positions? I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

David Heath: What the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the Electoral Commission on 22 March shows the regard in which he holds that body. He wanted a revised opinion and, after several paragraphs about what he wanted the commission to give an opinion on—in the hope that he would get something helpful to his position—he wrote:
	"I appreciate that tomorrow you have public Hearings in Scotland, but Parliament needs to know what the commission's position is to enable it to consider amendments to the bill. I would be grateful if we could have your response by 3pm tomorrow at the latest to enable us to table any necessary amendments to the Bill before it returns to the Commons on Wednesday 24 March."
	The Deputy Prime Minister asked for a revised opinion from the Electoral Commission, giving it fewer than 24 hours to make a considered response.

Christopher Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, he would recognise that the letter was a response to the amendment tabled by the odd alliance in the other place, which suggested that we should abrogate this decision to the Electoral Commission. In that case, it seems only reasonable to ask the Electoral Commission its view of that amendment.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is reasonable—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Hon. Members say "Ah" as though they had considered the matter carefully and considered it an outrage. Were the Government really expecting reasoned advice from the Electoral Commission in only five hours on a matter that had been before the Government since September last year?

Mike Hancock: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. He has made a compelling case for the inclusion of the south and the south-west in the pilot scheme, but the Government have resisted it. During the many debates on this issue, has he come across a compelling reason for denying us that opportunity while including the north-west?

David Heath: The most irritating thing about the whole debate is that the Government have never given us their reasons for doing that, apart from the fact—

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Heath: I shall not give way any more. I have already spoken for long enough. I have given way far more than any other Member and there have been enough interventions.
	The point—

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just heard the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) say that he will not give way again.

David Heath: By saying so, I disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh)—but never mind, I am not going to take any more interventions.
	We have never been offered any sensible arguments for the choice of the north-west over the rest of the country. All we have heard is the Government's assertion that they will have their way in the north of England. They have not tried to address the issues for the south of England, Wales and Scotland.
	In the other place, Lord Filkin argued that the choice would somehow improve the quality of information to be gathered from the pilots to inform future decisions. Having worked for Lord Filkin in local government, I have some respect for him—

Christopher Leslie: What about me?

David Heath: I shall have respect for the hon. Gentleman when he stands up to his colleagues and actually does something sensible about the Bill.
	Lord Filkin's argument was that the value of the pilots would be greatly improved if the north-west were included. However, the reverse is the case. If we are seriously holding pilots to improve election technique, what better control could there be than to hold all-postal elections in Yorkshire and Humber on one side of the Pennines and in the north-west on the other side? We could then compare the two. We could look at the problems, such as the level of any fraud that took place and any difficulties in the system, and make sensible arrangements for universal provision. A scientist would say that for an experiment, one needs an experimental subject and a control—[Hon. Members: "The south-west."] The south-west is hardly a comparable region to the north-west. If any hon. Member believes that the north-west has similar characteristics to the south-west—

Ian Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that when a Member refers directly to another Member, that Member is allowed to intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Member who is addressing the House at the time.

David Heath: The only person to whom I can recall making a reference was Lord Filkin and I do not think that he is allowed to intervene in this place. I am baffled by the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart)—

Ian Stewart: rose—

David Heath: I am so baffled that I shall accept his intervention so that he can explain what he is talking about.

Ian Stewart: In his very theatrical contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to know who had asked for the pilot to be held in the north-west and why that region had been chosen rather than another one. I am in favour of other regions having the same facilities, but the question now is why should the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and Members of an unelected House stop my constituents from having the right to a postal ballot. We held a postal ballot pilot in Salford and in one ward where turnout had been 12 per cent. it went up to 25 per cent. That is one reason why we should hold postal ballots.

David Heath: All right. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. He has had an all-postal ballot in Salford; I have had an all-postal ballot in my constituency. He is denying my constituents—

Ian Stewart: indicated dissent.

David Heath: Yes, he is. That is what the Bill says. He should read the Bill. It will be illegal for—

Ian Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that this is a point of order, not a matter of debate, because time is running out and other hon. Members want to contribute.

Ian Stewart: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made it clear in my contribution that I am in favour of other regions having postal ballots.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a spurious point of order; it is a matter for debate.

David Heath: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Bill says that there will be no all-postal ballots this June in any municipal election in any area outside the four regions.

John Pugh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: No, I shall conclude my remarks. I have taken long enough.
	I simply say that the only way in which we can have integrity in our voting systems is if all parties in the House respect the integrity of those systems and accept the fact that they need to build consensus and accept the advice of independent arbiters. That is exactly what the Government are determined not to do. They have got exactly what they asked for at the start of the Bill's consideration. Why do they not just accept it, stop this nonsense right away tonight and let the returning officers get on with running a successful election?

Gordon Prentice: We have only a few minutes, and I have only a few points to make. This ping-pong cannot go on indefinitely. I want the north-west to be included in the postal ballots, but we have a common interest in ensuring that the integrity of the ballot is maintained. That does not divide us.
	Reference has been made throughout the debate to what happened in Pendle in 2002. Members can read the remarks of Lord Greaves in the Lords Hansard of 29 January. It is all set out there, but the fact is that, after a year-long police investigation, no prosecutions were brought and there were no convictions. I am getting fed up with the constant smearing about what is happening in my constituency. Some practices are not unlawful, but they are unsavoury. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) referred to the fact that it is not unlawful to send postal ballots to an address other than the voter's address. That is an incredible state of affairs, but it is true. If postal ballots are universal in the north-west on 10 June, as I hope, every elector will get his or her postal ballot delivered to his or her own address. That will do more than anything else to combat fraud.
	The Electoral Commission produced a report, with a series of recommendations, a year ago in March 2003. I am glad to say that one of those recommendations has been picked up by the Government and forms the basis of the Government amendment tonight. That is good—I welcome it—but the Electoral Commission's other recommendations are still in the pipeline. I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that to nail those smears—if that is what people do to smears—let us put in place those recommendations from the Electoral Commission. I am thinking about the development of a protocol that considers who is responsible for following up allegations of electoral fraud. That was suggested by the Electoral Commission a year ago. Let us do it now, and let us send people who are guilty of electoral fraud to prison for a long time. That is what Labour Members want because we believe in maintaining the integrity of the ballot. Rigorous checks should be made after significant elections to unearth fraud if it takes place. All those recommendations have been around for a year and I want the Government to act on them.
	Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tries to intervene, let me conclude by saying that I am fed up with all the spurious arguments that have been recycled three, four or five times in the House of Lords. The will of the elected House must prevail on this matter. Let us vote this through and let us have clean elections on 10 June.

John Pugh: When this process started, I really did not believe the conspiracy theory that it was a ploy to get more Labour votes. I was genuinely relaxed about the electoral outcome. I could see the arguments for and the good arguments against. However, tonight I have been astonished by the Government's unwillingness to compromise with the Lords and the Electoral Commission, by their willingness to find more and more time in the parliamentary calendar for this quite small piece of legislation, and by the massive turnout in force of Government luminaries, including the Leader of the House.
	If this issue were just about electoral pilots and not Labour's political advantage, why has there been all this pressure and excitement among Labour Members? The game has already been given away by the reference by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) to the Liverpool outcome and by the reference by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to what the British National party might do. Fundamentally, it has been given away by the excitement of Labour Members.

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that it is more likely that the motivation—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [8 March].
	The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement. Further to my business statement of last week, the House will wish to know that we may now consider any further Lords message that may be received either at the commencement or the conclusion of business on 1 April.

Oliver Heald: Is it not appropriate that it will be April fools' day when the Government will be using extra time to force through changes to the electoral system in the face of the opposition of the Electoral Commission and all parties in this Parliament? Even the Greens voted with us in the House of Lords.
	Will the time for the Easter Adjournment debate on Thursday be protected? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will no other ministerial statements that day? Is he aware that a third of the Labour Lords failed to attend the vote today in the other place? Instead of continuing his vendetta with the other place, will he think again and remember the correct procedure in this country for changing electoral procedures? We should reach agreement among all the parties and not have these sorts of changes pushed through using a temporary Commons majority, which if the Government go on this way will not last another year.

Peter Hain: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that April fools' day ends at midday, and that these matters will be discussed after midday? He should at least get his early interventions correct.
	This was not done in the face of the advice of the Electoral Commission. All the pilot areas selected, which were all proposed by the Government, were recommended by the commission in either the first or second category. Surely the hon. Gentleman will understand that the intention is to hold all-postal referendums in October, just three to four months after these elections. It is a matter of getting the pilots going so that we have the postal voting in place so that it can continue in October.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any other statements on Thursday. I cannot give him that assurance. Nor can I give him an assurance that we will go beyond 6 pm.
	This is a simple business statement to deal with an unprecedented situation. According to the records that we have been able to discover, we have never been in a situation where the House of Lords has disagreed on so many occasions. We hope that after the narrow vote—only six votes prevented the Government's position from being carried in the other place—there will be a reasonable reconsideration. We are grateful for the support that has been received from Cross-Bench peers, who understand that this is a matter of democracy. It is in the interests of the majority of people to be able to vote. Postal votes encourage them to do so, and all good democrats should support that.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the content of the Bill is of considerable importance, the issues are now entirely different? The House of Lords, instead of acting as a revising—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is on his feet.

Gerald Kaufman: The House of Lords, instead of acting as a revising Chamber, is pitting its will against the House of Commons. That was precisely what the Liberal party decided to prevent in 1910 when its Budget was rejected by the House of Lords. That was why the Parliament Act 1911 was passed with a Liberal majority in this place.
	Is it not also a fact that it is almost certain—[Interruption.] That lot will never win an election to get a majority in this place, so they are using the other place. It is almost certain—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Gerald Kaufman: It is almost certain that there has been no occasion since the Liberal party passed the Parliament Act that the House of Lords has pitted itself against the House of Commons so many times. Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that is it essential for the will of the House of Commons to prevail, but that at the next election we should ask the electorate to agree to a manifesto reducing—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend made his point with his customary eloquence and elegance. May I clarify one of his comments? It is not necessarily the House of Lords, but the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords who are in an unholy alliance to deny more and more people the opportunity of voting in the pilot areas.

Paul Tyler: I do not intend to go back to 1910, despite the recollection of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I want to go back to 1969. In 1969 the then Labour Prime Minister, Mr. James Callaghan—[Hon. Members: "1979."]—tried to push through—this is a true precedent—[Hon. Members: "1979"]—1969—

David Maclean: Mr. Callaghan was Home Secretary in 1969.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I stand corrected. The Home Secretary of the day, Mr. James Callaghan, attempted to gerrymander—attempted to overrule—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very narrow debate. I have been generous up to now on the motion. I ask hon. Members to restrict their comments to the subject matter of the debate, and likewise their responses.

Paul Tyler: The terms of the business motion imply that the views of the Electoral Commission are to be disregarded. I am sure that the Leader of the House did not intend to mislead the House a few minutes ago. The chairman of the Electoral Commission—to whom the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have referred, so I am sure it must be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—specifically said that the commission could not positively recommend the addition of a fourth area, the north-west region, to the pilot studies. That is specific—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate to discuss the substance of what the House will discuss on Thursday. I ask hon. Members to restrict their comments to the business statement before the House.

Paul Tyler: I understand precisely what you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Leader of the House indicated, this is germane to the business motion before the House. We are being asked in very difficult circumstances to deal with an extremely important issue on which the advisers to both the Government and Parliament—the Electoral Commission—have indicated their view. The Leader of the House made great play of the fact that the other place is not elected. That is in his hands. His Government do not have the guts to change the composition of the other place. I hope that he will now announce when that House is to be elected.

Peter Hain: I am not sure that it would be correct for me to respond to the last point in the context of the business statement. As the hon. Gentleman referred to the views of Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, I shall quote from a letter he sent to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). He writes:
	"It is of course for Parliament to decide the number of all postal regions."
	The House of Commons has repeatedly made its decision clear, including only a few minutes ago. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) should accept the will of the House of Commons and not rely on an inflated Conservative majority in the House of Lords to defy the will of the House of Commons.

Anne Campbell: Is it not disgraceful that the House of Lords continues to defy and overrule this elected House of Commons, which must be the supreme House in this place? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision to withdraw the proposals to reform the Lords, which would set up more sensible arrangements, make it clear that the House of Commons has supremacy and state that the House of Lords does not have the right continually to defy the House of Commons?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the issue is constitutionally unprecedented. The House of Lords cannot continue to defy the elected will of the House of Commons when the House of Commons has repeatedly voted in this way.

Angela Browning: The Leader of the House did not answer the most important part of the representations by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), which concerns the Easter Adjournment debate. I regularly attend those debates, and I hope to attend on Thursday to raise important constituency matters. The Leader of the House is the custodian of the rights of hon. Members and is there to see that we get fair play as Back Benchers. Will he make a commitment that those of us who want to raise matters of far more importance to my constituents than this ping-pong will have a suitable amount of time in which to hold that debate on Thursday?

Peter Hain: The easy solution to the hon. Lady's predicament is to get her Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords to agree to the decision made only a few minutes ago in the House of Commons, in which case there would be no reason to reduce the time for the Easter Adjournment debate.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House confirm the rest of Sam Younger's letter? It goes on to say that
	"The considerations as set out in our December Report regarding the North West have not changed . . . For the reasons set out in my letter of 4 March we are not persuaded of the merits of piloting in 4 regions."

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already advised the House that we are not debating the substance of the Bill.

Kevin Barron: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether Thursday's debate, which may be affected by the business statement, can be used to discuss the relationship between this Chamber and the other place? Tonight, we are being bound over for the 13th time since the general election by the other place defying the view of the elected Chamber, which happened on only three occasions between 1979 and 1997. It is clear that the challenge from the other place is not about revision but about the fundamental politics by which the people elected us to this place.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case, which is why I am sure that common sense will prevail at this late stage and that Members of the House of Lords will decide, particularly because the vote was so narrow—only six votes in it—that the will of the House of Commons should prevail.

Eric Forth: As the Leader of the House of Commons is discussing Commons business, will he confirm whether a further business motion will be required tomorrow to give effect to what he has said to the House this evening? Will the Leader of the House give my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) a proper answer and undertake to protect the time available to Members of the House for our Adjournment debate on Thursday, which has nothing to do with the other place, even if he has to make a last-minute adjustment to the business in a panic? Will he give us such a guarantee?

Peter Hain: I guarantee the right hon. Gentleman that he can have all the time that he wants on Thursday if the House of the Lords supports the decision of the House of Commons. That is the solution to his problem.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The business statement was narrow, and we must move on.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Higher Education Bill

John Horam: I should like to present a petition on behalf of well over 1,000 members of the National Union of Students at Orpington college, which is an absolutely first-class college.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of Orpington College Student Union and NUS members,
	Declares that the petitioners are united in their opposition to the Government's Higher Education Bill.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons decline to pass the Higher Education Bill at Third Reading.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

European Constitution

Christopher Chope: It is a privilege to be able to present this substantial petition comprising 121 pages of signatures from about 1,000 of my constituents, and I am pleased to be able to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the contents.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of persons living or working in the Parliamentary constituency of Christchurch
	Declares that the proposed European Constitution with which Her Majesty's Government has agreed in principle involves grave and significant constitutional issues that affect democracy in the United Kingdom, self government, and the national interest and makes a fundamental change in the relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons passes legislation to authorise a referendum of the electorate on the European Constitution at the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

NHS Dentistry

Peter Duncan: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed by some 4,000 locals in Dumfries and Galloway to protest at the inadequate provision of NHS dentistry.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway declares that provision of NHS dentists in Dumfries and Galloway is unacceptably low, with over 40,000 local people who are not registered with an NHS dentist and are unable to do so. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Scottish Executive to take immediate action to rectify the situation.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Prittle Brook Sewer

Bob Spink: Some women's institutes pose for calendars and some bake cakes, but the Hadleigh Evening WI is an effective, tough campaigning machine fighting for its community, along with excellent local councillors and caring, dedicated residents such as Colin Henwood and Don Saunders, who fought for many years to resolve the problem of Prittle Brook sewer, which floods some homes with water and sometimes raw sewage, with all the distress, danger and disruption that that causes.
	Anglia Water is an excellent company; I met its representatives today. They want to eliminate sewer flooding in homes and care about customer service. The problem lies with Ofwat and the Government, who must ensure that funds for the necessary repairs are released so that Anglia can do the job once and for all. I congratulate Maureen Hurrell, Sheila Whitelegg, Yvonne Grimes and all the WI ladies on compiling the petition, which states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
	The Humble Petition of Mrs M Hurrell and others of like disposition sheweth
	That there is considerable public concern caused by the long standing failure of the Prittle Brook sewer, which causes serious health concerns and damage to property every year.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government, and in particular, DEFRA, to investigate this matter and to ensure that the necessary investment is made to permanently resolve the problem so that residents can live in their homes without continual fear of flooding by surface water and raw sewage.
	And your Petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

SUB-POST OFFICE CLOSURES (WAKEFIELD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

David Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise my concerns over the proposed closure of four sub-post offices in my constituency. I have followed very closely the discussions, which have taken place over many years under two different Governments regarding the future of the post office network. I have fully accepted the need to modernise the network to respond to social, economic and technological changes. I have strongly supported the Horizon project, the logic of the provision of modern online IT facilities and, in particular, the extension of the Post Office's arrangement with the high street banks.
	I welcomed the installation of cash machines and the overall automation of the network, which led to the Post Office becoming a gateway for delivering electronic and other services. In correspondence with constituents and the occasional anxious sub-postmaster or mistress, I have argued the logic of modernising the network, in the genuine belief that the proposals were in the best interests of the people whom I represent. However, in the past three months, to cite Jarvis Cocker, I have come to the gradual, soul-destroying realisation that I have been most monumentally had.
	What I believed to be modernisation turned out to be marketisation; what is termed "urban reinvention" means, in my back yard, putting the boot into some of my most vulnerable constituents. Frankly, I did not expect that from a Labour Government. If the Minister intends to tell me that it is a matter for the Post Office, I say to him now that that simply will not wash. We were used to Pontius Pilate jobs under the Tories, but I am not prepared to accept that from my party. The Minister can and should do something.
	As the Minister knows, the proposals to close the Thornes, St. Michael's, Agbrigg road and Haddingley Hill sub-post offices were announced in a letter that was sent out by the Post Office's head of area, Mr. David Mellows-Facer, on 29 December last year. The Minister will appreciate that probably the best time to make such an unpopular announcement is between Christmas and new year. Parliament is not sitting and most Members of Parliament and other public representatives are having a Christmas break. In short, the announcement was a classic Jo Moore job—burying the bad news.
	I found out about the proposals from the local press. I strongly resent the fact that I received such important information at second hand. I did not receive Mr. Mellows-Facer's letter until 9 January, because it was sent to the wrong address. Given that my constituency office has been listed as my contact address for many years, and that the other, fairly obvious point of contact for a Member of Parliament is the House of Commons, it is astonishing that the letter was sent to the Yorkshire regional Labour party headquarters.
	Even if I had received the letter on time, it is unacceptable that my constituents and I were given only until 9 February to respond to what was described as "a consultation process". I had less than four weeks to develop a detailed response to proposals that will undoubtedly have a serious impact on the lives of the people whom I represent. That is disgraceful. However, it was par for the course. The kindest thing that I can say about the consultation process is that it was a complete joke. Unfortunately, it is hard to see the funny side when three of the four closures impact on some of the most disadvantaged areas in my constituency, and the fourth, Thornes, affects an especially large population of elderly people.If the Post Office had deliberately targeted the most vulnerable in picking out those four sub-post offices, it could not have done a better job.
	The Minister knows that I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about the way in which the Post Office has developed its proposals and consultation process. I am disappointed with the answers that I have received so far. They have been very much in the "not me, guv" mode. I was especially disappointed that the Minister refused to instruct the Post Office to publish a profile of the select teams of personnel who walked between each sub-post office that was proposed for closure in Wakefield and the named alternative branch. Not unreasonably, I believed that it was important to know how many members of the select teams replicated the age profile of the customers who would be expected to travel further afield, and how many were physically disabled, wheelchair users, the elderly and very elderly, or people wheeling pushchairs and accompanied by young children.
	I have received many letters from people who are angry and deeply upset about the way in which the proposals will impact on them and their loved ones. I shall read only one, which was sent directly to Mr. Mellows-Facer by the daughter of an elderly couple who would be affected by the proposed Thornes closure. She wrote:
	"My father is 85 years of age and practically housebound, being cared for by my 80 year old mother who collects their pension weekly from the Thornes Post Office. It is a manageable 20 minute walk there and back for her and she can meet and chat to friends on the way. (In addition, she can buy essentials such as milk from this branch.) It is also a short break from the house for her, as she does not like to leave my father on his own for much longer than half an hour at a time.
	You suggest that she could use the 119/120 bus service to access either the Kirkgate or the Lupset Bar branches if the Thornes branch is closed. This bus service runs hourly in each direction. After collecting their pension from the Kirkgate branch, my mother would have to cross the busy Kirkgate road to catch the return bus. At the Lupset Bar branch she would have to walk down to the bus stop by the park and then would have an hour's wait, in the open as there are no facilities for shelter etc, on this road. The local newspaper, the Wakefield Express, has also recently reported that this bus service is to be curtailed in future as it is not well used.
	Both alternative branches are too far away for my mother to walk to and so the only other solution is for her to take a taxi. I find it disgraceful that she should have to pay taxi fares every week to collect their pensions."
	In a later letter to me, she said:
	"After much discussion my parents have decided to register to collect their pension at the general post office on Northgate. My mother now has to catch a bus on Denby Dale road into town, walk to the GPO, collect her money, walk back to the bus station, and catch another bus home again—all this at 80 years of age—plus my father has to be left alone while she travels to Wakefield. Once again it is the elderly, who find it hardest to cope, who are inconvenienced in the name of progress."
	If they are using the general post office in Northgate, I only hope that this elderly lady can cope with queuing for up to half an hour, which is apparently a frequent experience that will no doubt worsen as a consequence of the proposed closures.
	I was also disappointed with the Minister's answer to my question on the steps taken to monitor the factual accuracy of information on which closure proposals have been based. He told me on 22 March:
	"The public consultation process enables any factual inaccuracies in the proposals to be identified".—[Official Report, 22 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 520W.]
	What he did not say is what difference it makes to closure proposals when the information on which they are based is found to be fundamentally flawed.
	I do not have the time to detail all the erroneous information contained in the consultation document. The farcical nature of procedures that the Minister appears to be defending, however, is particularly well illustrated by the proposals concerning the St. Michael's sub-post office. Dewsbury road, Wakefield, is described as
	"a rural area of mixed occupations, with some of the population working in agriculture and crafts".
	I invite the Minister to take a stroll with me through the rural idyll that is Dewsbury road, Wakefield. I will give him a fiver for every chicken, cow and pig that he sees, and a tenner if he meets a farmer. The simple fact is that Dewsbury road is an urban, built-up area running from Westgate End to the city and constituency boundary. Whoever says otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land.
	The Post Office's assessment of those served by the Thornes sub-post office also confirms the cloud cuckoo land theory. Apparently, the population is "largely young". It is not. It has among the highest numbers of elderly and very elderly people in my constituency. Alms houses in Horne street and the Whitehouse bungalows are among several that specifically accommodate the elderly. The Thornleigh estate and Thornes Moor estate house significant numbers of retired constituents who, like the elderly couple to whom I have already referred, may simply be unable to access the proposed alternative in Kirkgate.
	The assessment of St. Michael's sub-post office talks of a "largely young population" who presumably will have little trouble accessing the alternatives, providing that they can avoid the cow pats on Dewsbury road. I have a rather different impression, however, of a population with a large number of low-income and elderly people. Neither of the alternatives proposed, and in particular the Dewsbury road sub-post office, is within walking distance, especially for elderly people, and this closure will cause particular difficulties for many of the current customers.
	As I pointed out in my written response to Mr. Mellows-Facer, many of the current users of the Agbrigg road sub-post office are elderly and disabled people from the Belle Vue area, who had to use Agbrigg road sub-post office when the Doncaster road sub-post office closed some years ago. This is a low-income area with low car ownership, and suggesting Sandal sub-post office as an alternative for most of the current users is completely inappropriate, given the difficulty of accessing it from Agbrigg and Belle Vue, especially for residents living to the east of Doncaster road.
	The customer profile of Haddingley Hill sub-post office describes
	"a large number of young families",
	but turns a now familiar blind eye to the impact of the closure on the large number of elderly and very elderly people currently served. Why is there no mention of the fact that this outlet is used by a large number of elderly people living in flats and other purpose-built accommodation in Manygates crescent and Duke of York avenue? Why is there no mention of the fact that immediately across the road are the flats and sheltered housing complexes in Woodcock street and Sparable lane? Why, according to one of the Minister's answers to me, are the health and social care implications of the closures
	"operational matters for Post Office Ltd"?—[Official Report, 22 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 520W.]
	Has the Minister never been contacted by a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress in his constituency who is concerned about some aspect of the health and well-being of an elderly customer, or does that only happen in Yorkshire? Is it not right that those people have served as a point of contact with outside help for those who may have few other ways of obtaining such help?
	Let me illustrate the problem by referring to the individual circumstances of two people. The first is a gentleman who lived a few streets away from me until he died a couple of years ago. His name was Alf Watson, and he served his country during world war two. He never recovered from some of the things that happened then. He was an accomplished rugby league player and played professionally on the Leeds side which played in the challenge cup final against Bradford Northern, at Wembley in 1947. Towards the end of his life, when he was not finding things easy, he had two particular props—I use the word "props" in the widest sense. One was a very good neighbour; the other was the former sub-postmaster at Haddingley Hill sub-post office, who helped Alf retain his independence against all the odds. Significantly, when Alf died he left his most prized possessions—his rugby league medals—to the former sub-postmaster. The Minister may regard such a caring role as
	"operational matters for Post Office Ltd",
	but I regard it as basic humanity. I hope the Government may encourage such basic humanity.
	The second person I want to mention illustrates the fact that the consultation process take no account of the likely impact of the proposed closure on the local economy in the immediate area of three of the four sub-post offices in Wakefield, which are located near other retail outlets. I feel that that impact should have been considered.
	This second gentleman is 83, with a similarly distinguished war record. He is a widower living alone in the Milnthorpe area of Wakefield, which was removed from my constituency in 1997 by the Boundary Commission. For some reason it felt that Farnley Tyas near Huddersfield had more in common with Wakefield city. This gentleman has taken the modernisation agenda fully on board, accessing his Co-op bank account and conducting his domestic financial transactions at Haddingley Hill sub-post office. He takes a taxi from his home to Haddingley Hill, or "busy corner" as it is more commonly known, where he also visits the freezer centre, the chemist, the butcher/greengrocer and the newsagent. He has been known very occasionally to visit the off-licence and the pub, The Foresters—but not, as far as I am aware, the suntan centre. There are two sub-post offices near where he lives, but neither has adjacent parades of shops where he can obtain all that he needs for the week. He could go to a supermarket, but is not up to walking around it or queueing at the checkout. He and many others like him have been simply disregarded in the closure process.
	The gentleman's name, by the way, is the right hon. Walter Harrison. He is my predecessor as Member for Wakefield, which he represented for 23 years. He was probably the most legendary Whip ever to pin a Back Bencher against a wall—but he will not be pinning me against a wall for refusing to support the Government in last week's vote on post offices. Like many others in my area who have solidly supported the Labour party all their lives, he shares my view that what is happening to our sub-post offices is not what we expected of a Labour Government. Both he and I sincerely hope that it is not too late for the Minister to do something about it.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on securing the debate. He has been very energetic in voicing local concerns about the post office closure proposals on behalf of his constituents, and he made a powerful speech this evening, not least when citing the name of Walter Harrison in support of his case. He tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the subject over the past few weeks, and I endeavoured to answer them—albeit not, as he made clear, entirely to his satisfaction.
	My hon. Friend has clearly spelled out his views and concerns about the impact of the post office closures that will shortly take place in his constituency and about the consultation process that preceded those decisions. I am grateful to him for accepting the need for change. He said that he was concerned about the process of marketisation, but I would make the point that sub-post offices have always been private businesses—for more than 100 years, going right back to the beginnings of the Post Office. Those who run sub-post offices as private businesses must be able to make a reasonable living, and it is part of the Government's responsibility to ensure that that occurs. That provides an important part of the background to the process of change that we are currently going through.
	I agree with my hon. Friend, for precisely the reasons that he set out, about the importance of maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. It is important that sub-post offices and their proprietors, the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, are able, as they always have, to provide strong support to vulnerable individuals among their customers. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, which is one of the reasons why it is important that the Government maintain a viable nationwide network of post offices and stop unmanaged gaps from opening up in that network.
	The starting point of our policy for the network is the performance and innovation unit's 2000 report, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, "Modernising the Post Office Network". It was widely welcomed as squaring up honestly and finally to the challenges that the network faces. It made 24 recommendations for the future, all of which the Government accepted. The PIU report showed quite starkly that our network of post offices had not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers, and that too often post offices had become dingy and shabby through lack of investment, as a result of which the network was losing business.
	The Post Office faces an enormous challenge. For the last financial year, Post Office Ltd. lost £194 million before exceptional items. In the previous year, it lost £163 million. About 97 per cent. of the nation's post offices are private businesses run by sub-postmasters, but with declining profitability in the network as a whole—and, in very many cases, at individual office level—the ability of those sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses has also declined. That is how they often moved on in the past, but it has taken a very severe knock. Decisive action was needed to ensure that we maintained a sustainable countrywide network for the future, which is the action that the Government have been taking.
	My hon. Friend knows that the post office network has been contracting since the 1960s. There have been reductions in post office usage for all sorts of reasons, and the absence of investment in the past was an important one, but big changes in technology, greater mobility, changes in shopping and financial habits have all meant that a large proportion of all our constituents are simply not using the post office in the way that they used to—and custom has sharply reduced as a result.
	Before responding to some of my hon. Friend's points, I mention some telling comparative figures. In 1996, 26 per cent. of benefit recipients received their cash paid directly into their bank accounts; in April last year, just before the transition to direct payments started, that proportion had risen to 43 per cent. In quite a short period, dramatic reductions in the use of the post office network took place, which we needed to take into account.
	If we want an urban post office network that is the right size for the volume of business now available to it, there have to be—in addition to the new technology and the introduction of banking facilities that my hon. Friend welcomed—closures in the urban network. I do not know whether my hon. Friend feels that a different set of four sub-post offices should have been proposed for closure, but that was the key question facing the Post Office and Postwatch in embarking on this exercise.
	I gather that, at the start of the programme, there were 31 post offices in my hon. Friend's constituency, of which 13 were classified by Post Office Ltd. as urban. Last September, Post Office Ltd decided to prepare closure proposals on an area plan basis, using the parliamentary constituencies grouped together, where appropriate, to give a clearer, "once over the ground" view of future service provision. I take my hon. Friend's point about the awkwardness of the date of 29 December, but he will appreciate that announcements are continually being made, given the scale of the exercise. Nevertheless, he makes a fair point about the date on which the area plan was published. There were four closure proposals in respect of the branches that he has mentioned.
	Postwatch considered each of the proposals carefully before concluding that, in this case, there were insufficient grounds to oppose them. It therefore chose not to refer the four proposals to the escalation and review process. I have looked at Postwatch's comments, and in all four cases it accepted that there was not enough business for the branches to remain viable. In each case, there is an alternative office located within half a mile or so. Postwatch draws attention to one important consideration. In its view, the closure of two branches—Agbrigg road and Haddingley Hill—enabled the strengthening, and therefore the long-term viability, of two other offices in designated deprived urban locations that are not too far away, and which might otherwise themselves have been at risk.

David Hinchliffe: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but Agbrigg road in particular has heard it all before. Exactly the same arguments were advanced when people were relocated from Doncaster road. Will he address my concern about what happens when people have to relocate and to use the general post office? My secretary took four huge parcels to the general post office yesterday, and she had to queue for half an hour in order to send them here by registered post. People regularly have to queue there for half an hour. It simply is not on when people in their 80s have to wait that long to access a service.

Stephen Timms: I accept my hon. Friend's point entirely, but I should point out that two post offices in his constituency—the Kirkgate and Windhill road branches—have submitted applications for improvement grants from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Up to £50,000 can be applied for in such cases; however, the results of those applications have yet to be determined. The programme provides an opportunity to improve other branches, in order to help them to cope with the additional custom that they will receive.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the delay that he suffered in being informed of the proposals, and I shall certainly ask the Post Office what happened. He said that the letter was sent to the wrong address, and I entirely sympathise with his anger at finding out about these proposals through the local press. That certainly should not happen and it is not the Post Office's intention; I shall endeavour to find out what went wrong. This may not be of much comfort to my hon. Friend, but in response to a number of problems that are not dissimilar to the ones he described, I told the House in a statement of 5 February about some changes to the consultation process. They include the requirement that Members of the House be informed one week before these proposals go out to wider public consultation. I hope that that will help to avoid other Members facing the difficulties that he has faced through finding out so late. Such changes reflect my concern that the reasoning behind the decisions being taken was not being explained as clearly as it should have been. I think that the changes announced in my statement on 5 February have helped.
	My hon. Friend expressed some concerns about disabled access and the facilities in post offices. The Post Office is taking action to meet the requirements, as it has to, of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Disability awareness training, for example, has been provided to all staff. In a number of branches, drop-down counters, electronically aided doors and mobile hearing induction loops are being installed. I understand that a number of those measures are to be taken in my hon. Friend's constituency.

David Hinchliffe: There are only a couple of minutes left. One of the key points to which I wanted my hon. Friend to respond was the fundamental flaws and inaccuracies in the consultation document. The nature of the areas that the sub-post offices served was assessed wrongly. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Stephen Timms: Yes. I am not able to explain to him how Dewsbury road was described as a rural road, given what he has said. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I will take that away and find out what happened.
	I am satisfied, and certainly the experience across the country is, that Postwatch scrutinises all the proposals thoroughly and rigorously. If Postwatch concludes that the proposals are wrong—on the basis of walking around the area and having a look at it—it does not hesitate to oppose the closures that have been proposed. On this occasion, its view was that the proposals, although there were some issues that should be looked at, should not be opposed.
	Let me also respond to the point about queueing times. He has tabled parliamentary questions about that with regard to the main Crown office in Wakefield. He described his secretary's experiences there recently. I understand that the office is not expected to be the main receiving branch for much of the custom migrating from the offices that will close, but Post Office Ltd will monitor the position at that office very carefully and, if it needs to, will flex the staffing times or increase the staffing hours to meet additional demand.
	My hon. Friend expressed concerns about Postwatch. I say to him again that Postwatch has been vigorous and forthright. Indeed, it was the concerns articulated to me by Postwatch as well as several Members of Parliament that convinced me of the need to review the consultation arrangements urgently and led to the changes that I announced on 5 February, which I hope will ensure that problems of the kind that my hon. Friend has suffered will not occur in the future.
	Like my hon. Friend, Postwatch has recognised from the beginning of the exercise that action is needed to ensure the future survival and viability of the network. It accepted that, with too many post offices competing for the same customers in many urban areas, it would not be possible to oppose every individual closure where it was clear that customers would have—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o'clock.